



nos 



The Jews of 
South Garolina w 

t$* e^ t^ 6^ 

A Survey of the Records at Present 
Existing in Charleston. 

To write an adequate and comprehensive 
history of the Jews of South CaroUna to- 
day is a task of enormous difficulty. Not 
that there is any dearth of material to 
him who has the patience and the industry 
to go after it, but because many valuable 
documents are no longer in existence; and, 
furthermore, because a vast amount of 
material bearing upon the history of 
South Carolina during the Revolutionary 
period, and indirectly, therefore, upon that 
of the Jews, is at present hidden away in 
Columbia, where it will be some years be- 
fore it will be available to the historian. 

The oldest records of the Congregation 
Beth Elohim, too, have disappeared. Those 
which I recently recovered, valuable 
though they be, only date from 180O. The 
oldest records, with the exception of one 
volume, were no longer in existence in 
1844, which fact was elicited in the exam- 
ination of Solomon Valentine, the then 
Secretary of the Congrc tion in the trial 
of The State vs Ancker, of which I have 
written elsewhere. ("The Organ in the 
Synagogue," reprinted from The News 
and Courier, November, 1902.) 

Even that one precious volume is gone. 
But in spite of this I think that we can 
obtain from the rich historical material 
still remaining in Charleston, a tolerably 
good glimpse in outline of the history of 
the Charleston Jewish community— enough 



<< 



at least to enable some future and more 
capable worker in this field, to fill in the 
details and reconstruct it in its entirety. 
Personally, I can only hope to gather up ^\ 

a few scattered threads; and I shall, as ( \ 

far as possible, let the records speak for 
themselves. 

The story of South Carolina is indeed a' 
thrilling one. From 1670, when it was first 
settled, down to this day, it has been one 
long tale of glorious achievement. In not 
a few things has this State set the pace 
to her sister States, but in nothing may 
she feel a more justifiable pride than in 
the broad and liberal principles on Which 
she was founded. 

"In the year 1669," we read in the rec- 
ords, "the Lords 'did encourage severall 
people to come in their Vessells to inhab- 
itt this part of their province and with the 
said people did alsoe send Fundamll 
Lawes, Constitucons under the hands & 
Scales of six of their Lordshipps bearing 
date 21st July, '69, as the unalterable 
forme & rule of Governmt for ever,' " 

(Langdon Cheves, Esq, in "Shaftesbury 
Papers"— Note to p 117.) 

This Constitution of John Locke (1669,) 
was a veritable Magna Charta of liberty 
and tolerance. South Carolina started 
right. My chief concern being the Jews 
of South Carolina, I would especially call 
attention to Article 87 of that Constitu- 
tion. It is to be found in the Shaftesbury 
Papers in the 5th volume of the Collec- 
tions of the South Carolina Historical So- 
ciety: 

"87. But since ye native* of yt 
place -wlio -will be concernd in or. 
plantations are utterly strangrers to 
Cliristianity, whose idollatry, igrno- 
rance, or mistake grives us noe rifflit 
to expell or use ym. ill, & tliose -wlio 
reuiove from other parts to plant 
tbere, Tf^ill unavoydably be of dlff- 



rent opinions concerning- matters of 
religion, ye liberty wliereof tliey 
Trill expect to liaA'-e alloTrecl yni., 4$: 
it Tvill not be reasonable for ns on 
this account to keep yni. ont yt civil 
peace may be inaintaind amidst ye 
diversity of opinions, & our agree- 
ment & compact vs'itb all men may 
be duly & faitlifully observed, ye 
violation whereof upon Trhat p'tence 
soever, cannot be Tvithout great 
oflEence to Almighty God, & great 
scandal to the true religion yt we 
p'fesse, & also yt heathens, Jues, 
and other dissenters from the purity 
of Christian religion may not be 
scared and kept at a distance from 
it, but by having an oppertunity of 
acquainting themselves with ye 
truth & I'casonablenes of its doc- 
trines, & ye peacablenes «& inoffen- 
civenes of its professors, may by 
good usage and perswasion, <& all 
those convincing methods of gentle- 
nes & meeknes sutable to ye rules 
& designe of the Ghospel, be w^one 
over to imbrace and unfeynedly re- 
ceive ye truth. Therefore any sea- 
ven or more persons agreeing in any 
religion shall constitute a church 
or profession to wch. they shall give 
some name to distinguish it from 
others." 

Little wonder, then, that the persecuted 
Jew, like the persecuted Huguenot and 
German Palatine, soon came here to find 
a, haven of rest. To be undisturbed in the 
possession of "life, liberty and the pursuit 
of happiness," and to enjoy the privilege 
of worshipping God as his conscience dic- 
tated—these have ever been the ideals of 
the Jew, even as they were the ideals upon 
which this great Republic was established. 
For by far the greater part of his his- 
tory, in every country, some or all of these 
"inalienable rights of man " have been 
denied him. Here he could have them all, 
and in fullest measure. South Carolina 



welcomed him. welcomed him as a man, 
welcomed him as a brother; welcomed him 
as a citizen, and the Jew showed himself 
worthy of the confidence that was reposed 
in him. It is no idle boast to claim that 
there are none who have shed more lustre 
upon the annals of this State, or have 
done more towards its upbuilding, than 
have its Jewish citizens. 

When did the Jews first come here and 
where did they come from? Thereby 
hangs an interesting tale. 

In the Charleston Library there is a re- 
print of a unique volume entitled "A New 
Description of that Fertile and Pleasant 
Province of Carolina, by John Archdale, 
Late Governor of the Same." (London, 
1707.) It was reprinted in Charleston in 
1822. On page 22 there occurs the following 
interesting narrative: 

"Now that tlie Reader may plainly 
discern, that the Almighty and Om- 
niscient God, takes cognizance of 
Hnnian Affairs, and «lirects them hy 
a -tvise and prudent Chain of Causes, 
I shall relate some remarkable Pas- 
sages that happened anickly after 
that I entered npon the Government, 
which was the ITth of Angnst, 1<>95. 
There is a Nation of Indians call'd 
the lanimassees, ^vho formerly live«l 
under the Spanish Government, lint 
now live nndei* the English, ah«>ut 
80 Miles from Charles-Tovk'n. Some 
ef these Indians going a Hunting, 
about i200 3Iiles to the South^vard, 
met with some Spanish Indians that 
lived about Saneta 3Iaria, not far 
from Augustine, the Seat of the 
Spanish Government; and taking 
them Prisoners, broitght them 
Home, designing to sell Ibein for 
Slaves to Barbitdoes or Juniaica as 
was usual; but I understanding 
thereof, sent for their King, and or- 
dered him to bring these Indians 
with him to Charles-Town, which 



accordinsly lie did: There were 
three 3Ien and one Woman; they \ 
conld speak Spanish, and I had a \ 
Jew for an interpreter, so npon ex- 
amination, I found they profess'd 
the Christian Reliftion as the Pa- 
pists do; upon which I thought in a 
most peculiar manner, they ought 
to he freed from Slavery; and there- 
upon ordered the King to carry . 
them to Augustine to the Spanish 
Governour with a Letter, desiring 
an Answer relating to the receit of 
them; who having receiv'd them; 
H^jit me the following Letter; So 
far as relates to this Aiiair, I copy 
it forth;" 

(Here follows the letter, which is of no 
interest to our investigation.) 

Who was this Jew who lived in Charles- 
Town in the year 1695? Can we find him 
elsewhere? Were there others liere at 
that early date? The i-ecords will h.elp 
us. 

In the Probate Records, 1694-1704, p. 133, 
Abraham Avilah, of Charles Towne, in ye 
County of Berkley and Province of Caro- 
lina, "for divers good causes and consid- 
erations me at this time especially move- 
ing and more especially out of trust and 
confidence which I repose in Mr Simon 
Valentine M-cht, malse him my true and 
lawfull attorney." This Power of Attorney 
is dated March 25, 1698. 

We meet with this, Simon Valentine sev- 
eral times in the old records. He writes his 
name Simon Valentyn. On page 339 of the 
same volume, Jacob Mears, of ye Parish 
of Port Royall, in ye Island aforesaid 
(Jamaica,) appoints "his trusty friend 
William Smith, of Carolina, merchant, his 
true and lawfull Attorney, to demand of 
Simon Valentine, of Carolina, shopkeeper, 
all and every such Debt and Debts, Sum 
and Sums &c, as may be owing to him." 
This deed is dated July 3, 1701. His name 



also appears on p. 410, on a document dat- 
ed January 24, 1704. In the volume, 1692-3, 
we find him several times as a surety on 
administration bonds. His name occurs 
on pp 248, 256, 280 and 357. The earliest of 
these documents bears the date of 1696. 

The last reference to this Simon Valen- 
tine is interesting, as it is the earliest rec- 
ord here of a Jew holding land. In the 
volume of Miscellaneous Records, 1714- 
1717, (p. 233,) there is a record of a mort- 
gage of a farm of 350 acres from Mordicai 
Nathan to Henry Peronneau which land, 
the deed tells us, "was formerly purchased 
by the said Mordicai Nathan and Symond 
Valentine, Deceased., being Joyn purchers, 
whom the said Mordicai has sur- 
vived." It may be explained here, that 
according to the old law, when two people 
bought a piece of land in common, should 
one of them die, the land belonged to the 
survivor. This law has since been re- 
pealed by Statute. 

The next document of interest is an old 
will, that is to be found in the volume, 
"Wills, 1671-1727." 

Abraham Isack, of Cyty of New Yorke, 
"being bound to sea, and therefore being 
present in good health, but not knowing 
when it may please the Almighty God to 
take me out of ye world," makes his will. 
It is dated May 26, 1709, and was recorded 
in Charleston February 20, 1710. 

It is now some years before the records 
make further mention of Jews. In 1739 we 
find two documents concerning Joseph To- 
bias, Shopkeeper— one a lease and the 
other a transfer of property. They are to 
be found in the Mesne Conveyance Rec- 
ords. (W. 471 and PP 696.) We find this 
same Joseph Tobias in one of the invento- 
ries of an estate. (Mesne Conveyance, 1749- 
50, p. 75.) 

The last of the records that I have been 



able to find occurs in the Probate Records 
for 1736-40. On p. 3 there is a letter from 
New York, dated November 25, 1743, and 
addressed to Messrs Daniel and Thomas 
La Roche, of Charleston. Mr Jacob Frank 
refers to his nephew, Mr Moses Solomons, 
and some difficulty which the said Moses 
Solomons had had with some London ship- 
ping house. On the next page David 
Franks, of Charles Town, Gent, declares 
that the letter signed Jacob Frank is the 
handwriting of his father. It would seem 
from another letter here recorded that 
Franks had connections in Lisbon. On 
page 300 there is a bond of Samuel Levy 
and Moses Salamons, of Charlestown, mer- 
chants, to Daniel La Roche & Thomas La 
Roche, of Winyau, for £2,605.6.8. 

Leaving the records let us now look at 
the Jews of early South Carolina, in their 
private life. As we have seen, the Jew 
here has never labored under any civil or 
religious disability whatsoever. As early 
as 1703 it is on record that Jews voted at 
the popular election for members of the 
Commons House of Assembly. This tolera- 
tion on the part of the Established Church 
party in South Carolina brought forth a 
protest from the bigoted Dissenters of 
that day, who complained that "At this 
last election, Jews strangers, sailors ser- 
vants, negroes and almost every French- 
man in Craven and Berkeley counties 
came down to elect, and their votes were 
taken; the persons by them voted for 
were returned by the Sheriff." 

(Rivers, "South Carolina," quoted by 
McCrady in "South Carolina Under the 
Proprietary Government," p. 391.) 

It is a pity that we cannot get a glance 
at the answer to this protest. It would be 
interesting, indeed, but it is unfortunately 
not available. 

The next point of interest in our inves- 



tigation is the question of how the Jews 
made a living in those early days. Here 
the Gazettes will help us. 

There were exceedingly few professional 
men in the Province in those days— doc- 
tors, lawyers and clergymen. With the 
exception of a few handicraftsmen and 
planters, the entire population subsisted 
by trade. Competition must have been 
very keen, for everybody seems to have 
had almost the same things for sale and 
to have advertised them in the very same 
way. Let us look at the advertisements 
in the South Carolina Ga^-ettes, between 
the years 1731 and 1750. 

The earliest Jewish names that I have 
found in the Gazettes occur in an ad- 
vertisement of August 17, 1734, When 
Messrs Carvallo & Gutteres announce that 
they "have to dispose of "Good Old Bar- 
bados Rum. Good Madei-a Wine. Musco- 
vado Sugar & Limejuice; Likewise some 
dry goods, &c, living in Church street, 
where formerly the printing office was." 
I am not quite certain that these were 
Jews. 

In the Gazette of November 22, 1735, Mr 
Carvallo advertises for sale "a very good 
Rhode Island Pacing-Horse," 

On September 14, 1738, Isaac De Pas in 
Union street offers to sell "Good White 
Sugar, very good Barbados Rum & very 
fine Citron Water," etc, etc. On February 
20, 1744, he advertises his wares at his 
shop on Broad street, and on March 19, 
1744, he announces to his patrons that "All 
gentlemen that have rice to dispose of 
may have two Parts in ready Cash and 
the Balance in Cordials of all sorts or 
any other goods that I have to sell." 

On August 25, 1739, we read the follow- 
ing: "To Be Sold in Union St, by Moses 
de Mattos, White, Milk, Ship, Middling & 
Brown Bread & Loaf Sugar. The same 



8 



may be had of Mr Tobias on the Bay. Also 
good Esopius Flour." He is still in Union 
street, on November 1, 1742. 

In the Gazette of April 3, 1742, there is 
an announcement of the "Half -Yearly 
Festival of the right worthy & amicable 
Order of UBIQUARIANS. Moses Solomon, 
Esq, is one of the Aedils. 

On December 16, 1745, Solomon Isaacs ad- 
vertises as the administrator of an estate, 
and on the same date Joseph Tobias an- 
nounces that as he intends to leave the 
Province in March, he would like those in- 
debted to him to come and settle. In the 
meantime, "I have most kinds of Cordial 
Drams to sell by Wholesale or Retail, 
Checks, Oznabrugs, hard Ware, Linnens 
& sundry other Goods. 

The last advertisement is that of Solo- 
mon Isaacs & Co, on October 10, 1748. They 
offer for sale Negro Cloth, woollen and 
linen goods, etc, "at the House on the 
Bay, in which Capt Colcock lives." 

So far the Records and the Gazettes. 
Summing up, then, our inquiry thus far 
We have found a Jew in Charleston in 
1695. I believe that he came from Jamaica, 
where Jews have lived from a very early 
date. We also found other Jews here be- 
fore 1700. I believe that they came from 
London. We have followed the Jew in his 
daily life and as a citizen. We have seen 
how, socially and religiously, he was at 
peace with his neighbors. He lived the 
same life and followed the same occupa- 
tions that they did, taking his full part 
in the burdens as well as in the privileges 
of citizenship. 

There were other Jews in Charleston in 
the year 1750. Of these I shall tell in my 
next article. Till now, it is the Records 
in Charleston that have been speaking. 



THE DAGGETT FEINTING CO. 

Charleston, S. C. 



The Jews of 
South Carolina** 



5^ f^m ^^ %^ 

J750-J783. 

A sympathetic critic, referring to the 
style in which my notes are being- pub- 
lished, remarks that "a history written in 
this manner would dismay the stoutest 
heart." Of course it would. But I am not 
writing history now. I am merely render- 
ing the data out of which alone history 
can be written, available for the future 
historian. Without facts there can be no 
history. After I have set out at length 
all that is kno^vn, it will be easy enough 
to put this material into proper shape. 
Even now I try to make the dry facts as 
interesting as I can. If I am uninterest- 
ing, it is not because I have not tried to 
be otherwise. 

There is another reason why I am going 
into minute detail. The old records are 
going to pieces. Twenty years from now, 
many of the documents to which I refer 
will no longer be legible. Some of them 
are already crumbling. The ink on the 
pages of many of the Gazettes is fading 
and if I have by my work preserved per- 
manently only a few records of the Jews 
of this State, the dulness of detail will be 
more than compensated. 

Let me further offer in extenuation this 
fact: By far the greater part of my ma- 
terial is unindexed. Even with accurate 
references to the Gazettes, the future 
worker may have to spend hours in look- 
ing up a single reference, for many of 
these papers were misplaced by the care- 



less binder, I have therefore striven to 
attain absolute accuracy in every one of 
my printed references and have confirmed 
each one of these references before re- 
printing my articles. My object in re- 
printing and distributing these pamphlets 
is mereiy to allow future correction and 
revision from material that may exist in 
the hands of others. When my material 
is in shape, I shall then attempt my his- 
tory. My present article will cover the 
period from 1750 till the end of the Revolu- 
tion, reserving for a special chapter the 
Jews in the Revolution. 



In my last article, I showed that quite 
a number of Jews lived in Charleston prior 
to 1750. In the list of members of the St 
Andrew's Society of the City of Charles- 
ton for 1740-1748, there are the names o* 
David Franks and Moses Solomons. We 
have already made the acquaintance of 
the latter in 1742 and 1743. 

Georgia was colonized in 1733 and we are 
told that a few days after its first settle- 
ment forty Jews arrived in Savannah. So 
illiberal was the iK)licy of the Trustees of 
the Colony that in 1741 the bulk of the 
Jews ieft it. Some went to Pennsylvania, 
others to New York and four, viz: Morde- 
cai Sheftall, Levi Sheftall, David de Oli- 
vera and Jacob de Olivera came to Charles 
Town. We do not meet with any of them, 
however, in the records prior to 1750. 

We have already seen that in 1748 there 
had been an idea discussed in London, of 
making a settlement of Jews in Charles 
Town. The original documents which I 
have published show that the negotiations 
came to nothing. In 1750, however, several 
Jews came to Charles Town and we read: 
("Occident Vol. 1, p. 337. See aiso Year 
Book for 1883, p. 301.) that in that year the 
following Jews lived here: 



Moses Cohen, Isaac Da Costa, Abraham 
Da Costa, Joseph Tobias, Meshod Tobias, 
Moses Pimenta, David de Olivera, Morde- 
cai Sheftall, Levy Sheftall, Michael Laza- 
rus, Abraham Nunez Cardozo and Philip 
Hart. This same year (1750) saw the first 
beginnings of the Congregational history 
of K. K. Beth Elohim. 

The late Mr Nathaniel Levin, who wrote 
both the sketch in the Year Book and that 
in the "Occident," used the old record- 
book of Beth Elohim as tne source of his 
information. The volume is unfortunately 
no longer in existence. It recorded the 
fact that at the conclusion of the Jewisli 
New Year 5510 (1750,) a meeting was caWed 
for the purpose of organizing a congrega- 
tion. Moses Cohen was elected Chief Ftab- 
bl, Isaac Da Costa, Reaaer, and Joseph 
Tobias, President. The name selected for 
the Congregation was the same which it 
still bears: "Kahal Kadosn Beth Elo- 
him." (The Holy Congregation Beth Elo- 
him.) About the same time, the Hebrew 
Benevolent Society was established— a so- 
ciety that still exists and carries on the 
work of its founders. The Congregation 
was strictly orthodox and its ritual that 
of the Spanish and Portuguese communi- 
ties as practiced in London and Amster- 
dam. 

There is no necessity for me to enter 
here into the details of its internal econo- 
my or to refer to the various buildings in 
which the Congregation worshipped. These 
details are fully given in the articles be- 
fore mentioned and will be discussed 
when I write my history. I will state, 
however, that the best account of the 
early communal history of the congrega- 
tion is that given in the report of the 
State vs Ancker In Richardson's South 
Carolina Law Reports, Vol 2, pp. 245-286. 
FIRST CHIEF RABBI MOSBS COHEN. 

The ^organization of the Congregation 



Beth Elohim was brought about through 
the zeal of Moses Cohen. Who Moses 
Cohen was I do not know. He came from 
London in 1750 and we have seen that In 
that year he was elected the first Chief 
Rabbi. His full title was "Haham v' Ab 
Beth Din, (Chief Rabbi and Chief of the 
Beth Din or Ecclesiastical Court.) This 
was probably nothing more than a high- 
sounding title in imitation of the old 
Synagogue of the Spanish and Portuguese 
Jews at Bevis Marks, London, of which 
the Congregation Beth Ek)him is a direct 
offshoot. Of his activity in this com- 
munity I likewise know nothing. If he 
has left any literary remains, I am una- 
ware of them. The only references to him 
in the contemporary literature that I have 
been able to find occur in two advertise- 
ments in the South Carolina Gazette. In 
the Supplement to the Gazette of August 
15, 1753, he advertises for "a runaway 
Dutch servant-girl about 10 years of age 
and 4 feet 6 inches high," and on October 
21, 1756, his name is mentioned in a list of 
unrecorded plats. In my search amongst 
the records in Columbia, I found three 
grants made to him In the "Grant Book," 
dated 1755 and 1759. 

Moses Cohen, or as he is described on 
his tombstone, "The Right Reverend 
Moses Cohen, D. D." died on April 19, 1762. 
He is interred in the Coming Street Ceme- 
tery, which at that time was not yet the 
property of the Congregation Beth Elo- 
him, but the private burial ground of the 
family of Isaac Da Costa. He was much 
esteemed by his Congregation and in the 
Constitution of 1820 it is especially en- 
acted (Rule XX) that "On every Kippur 
night perpetually, the first "escaba" 
(prayer for the dead) shall be made for 
the Reverend Moses Cohen, deceased, be- 
cause he was appointed and confirmed the 
Reverend Doctor of this Congregation 



from its first establishment, and as such 
it is conceived every mark of respect is 
due to his memory." 

This custom has not been kept up in 
my time. When I came here in 1894, the 
list of those of whom special mention was 
to be made was not here and there was no 
one who could restore it. It was lost 
until I recently recovered it in New York. 

The next man to wTiom I devote atten- 
tion is an exceedingly interesting charac- 
ter—Isaac Da Costa. As we have seen he 
was the first Reader of the Congregation 
Beth Elohim. 

ISAAC DA COSTA. 

In the "Literary Diary" of Ezra Stiles, 
Vol I, p. 453, under the date August 2, 1774, 
there is the following interesting item: 

"In the Afternoon I was visited by Mr 
Acosta a Jew Huzzan of the Synagogue 
in Charleston, So Carolina. He is aet. 52, 
born in London & educated under Hochem 
Rabbi Nieto there till aet. 29. Then he 
came to America & in 1754 instituted a 
Synagogue at Charleston." (See Kohut: 
"Ezra Stiles and the Jews,' p. 134.) 

This entry is particularly valuable bo- 
cause from it, together with the data 
given in his death notice, we can positive- 
ly' establish the date of his arrival in 
Charles Town as 1750. 

Though Isaac Da Costa was trained as 
a Reader for the Synagogue and officially 
occupied that position, we find him short- 
ly after his arrival engaged in trade. We 
meet with him first as a shopkeeper, in 
the South Carolina Gazette of July 22, 1751. 
On May 28, 1752, he is on Broad street. 
On November 26, 1753, he advertises as an 
administrator of an estate. In Ihis year 
I find his name on the records of King 
Solomon's Lodge, No 1 — the oldest regu- 
larly constituted Lodge in South Carolina. 
On October 21, 1756, his name occurs in a 



"list of unrecorded plats." On June 30, 
1757, he is still on Broad street, where he 
advertises "European and Indian goods." 
On November 17, 1758, he is in partnership 
with Thos Farr and the firm is now Da 
Costa & Farr. On April 7, 1759, he adver- 
tises as treasurer of Solomon's Lodge. On 
January 17, 1761, the firm is still Da Costa 
& Farr. They are extensive ship agents, 
(Nov 28, and Dec 5, 1761,) On Oct 30, 1762, 
Isaac Da Costa advertises alone— it is no 
longer Da Costa & Farr, In 1764, having 
some misunderstanding with his Congre- 
gation, Isaac Da Costa resigned his posi- 
tion as Reader. From an advertisement 
on Aug 3, 1765, he seems to have met with 
misfortune in business. On July 14, 1766, 
he advertises again. On April 2, 1772, he 
is agent for the Spanish Transport "The 
Diana." He is on King St. on April 19, 
1773. On July 4, 1774, he embarked for 
Rhode Island and on Dec 12, he returns 
with Miss Da Costa and Mr Abraham 
Jacobs. In the Gazette of the State of 
South Carolina of July 8, 1778, we find him 
in partnership with his son, and on Nov 
25 of that year he is away from town- 
there are three letters waiting for him at 
the Post Office. On July 21, 1779, we read 
that "At the last anniversary meeting of 
the Palmetto Society, Isaac Da Costa was 
elected one of the stewards." From the 
Royal Gazette of Mar 14, 1781, we learn 
that his estates were seized and confis- 
cated by the British. In the "Diary of 
Josiah Smith, Jr— one of the exiles from 
Charlestown to St Augustine, during the 
British occupation, 1780-1781," (unpublished 
MSS) he is mentioned among the "heads 
of families banished, who would not take 
protection." The date of his arrival In 
Philadelphia is here Riven as Dec 31, 1781. 
In 1782 we find his name, as well as that 
of his son enrolled among the original 
members of the Mikveh Israel Congrega- 



tion of Philadelphia. (Morals "Jews of 
Philadelphia, p. 15.) In 1783, he returns to 
Charleston and in February of that year 
he establishes the "Sublime Grand Lodge 
of Perfection." (Mackey's "Cryptic Ma- 
sonry, p. 151.) He died on Sunday, the 23rd 
of Nov, 1783, in the 62nd year of his age. 
Here is the notice of his death in the 
Gazette of the State of South Carolina," 
for Nov 27, 1783: 

"On Monday died, after a few days' ill- 
ness, by the wound of a splinter in his 
hand, Mr Isaac Da Costa, Sen, a respecta- 
ble and valuable citizen." 

Isaac Da Costa is buried in the private 
burial ground at Hanover street that 
still bears his name. He left no will, but 
letters of administration to his estate 
were granted to Mrs Sarah Da Costa, Jo- 
seph Da Costa and Samuei Da Costa on 
Mar 31. 1784. 

DA COSTA-PIMENTA. 

I do not know quite as much about 
Abraham Da Costa. He is, however, men- 
tioned in one of the most interesting doc- 
ments that have till now passed through 
my hands. It is a marriage agreement 
that reminds us of mediaeval times. 

In M. C. Records, Vol MM for 1763-7, p. 
2^2, and bearing the date Feb 15, 1765, 
there are the Articles of Agreement be- 
tween Abraham Da Costa and Rebecca 
Pimenta and Leah Pimenta, her mother" 

• * Abraham Da Costa, "with the consent 
and good liking of the said Leah, cove- 
nants, promises and agrees to take Rebec- 
ca Pimenta to wife according to the rights 
and ceremonies of the Jews without por- 
tion to be demanded or required. Within 
the space of three months from the date 
of these presents * * * the said parties 
binding themselves each to the other in 
the sum or penalty of £3000 current money 
of South Carolina." 



In the Vol. "Miscellaneous" for 1767-1771, 
p. 479, there is a marriage settlement of 
Abraham Da Costa to Rebecca Pimenta. 
He seems to have had a business in 
Georgetown, for in the South Carolina 
and American General Gazette of Mar 26, 
1778, he "informs his town and country 
friends that since the late dreadful fire, 
he is under an obligation to open a store 
at the upper end of King st, where he has 
to sell a great quantity of the goods late- 
ly sold at Georgetown, and some of the 
remains saved out of the above fire." In 
the Royal Gazette of May 22, 1782, he an- 
nounces that he has opened the "Irish 
Coffee House" on Broad st. I find his 
name only once in a real estate transac- 
tion, in 1779. (M. C, Vol B 5, p. 90.) 

Of David de Olivera I find no mention 
in the records. Jacob Olivera died in 
Charles Town soon after 17.50 and there is 
an inventory of his effects in the Probate 
Records. (Inventories 1751-3, pp. 409-10.) 
There is no reference to Abraham Nunez 
Cardozo, except the notice of his death in 
the S. C. G. for Nov 20, 1762. Here it is: 

NOV 17th.— This day died, Abraham Car- 
dozo, first cousin to Madam Sarah Da 
Costa, of a hurt received the inth instant, 
in Rebellion-Road, to the great grief of 
his wife" HANNAH CARDOZO 

JOSEPH TOBIAS. 

I have already referred to Joseph To- 
bias, the first President of Beth Elohim. 
We found him here in 1739. There is this 
item concerning him in Columbia amongst 
the documents from the State Paper Of- 
fice in London: "List of persons qualified 
according to the Act for naturalising Pro- 
testants in his Majesty's Colonies in 
America. Joseph Tobias a Jew Certificate. 
Recorded 11 December, 1741." We meet 
with him several times in the office of 
Mesne Conveyance, He died Jan 29, 1761, 
aged 76. 



Masoad Tobias (pronounced Meshod) 
was the son of Joseph Tobias. He died on 
Feb 27, 1798, aged 57. He must therefore 
have been born in Charleston.. 

Joseph Tobias had a son Jacob, who died 
in 1773. He had another son Josep'h whose 
son, Jacob Tobias was a member of Capt 
Drayton's Militia Company in 1775. He 
died on Nov 16, 1775, aged 26. He could 
therefore hardly have seen service in the 
Revolution. 

Moses Pimenta, we are told, was "a man 
learned in the law and a teacher of the 
Jewish youth." In the "Inventories" 1756-8, 
estate of Solomon Isaacs, there is a note 
of his. Moses Pimenta apparently learnt 
by experience that teaching Jewish youth 
is by no means an easy road to affluence. 

Mordecai Sheftall and Levi Sheftall were 
the sons of Benjamin Sheftall, one of the 
original Jews who settled in Savannah. 
They are more closely connected with the 
history of that community, though they 
did business and for a while lived in 
Charleston. In the M. C. Records O 3, p. 
501, Mordecai Sheftali, of the Province of 
Georgia, makes a marriage settlement, 
dated 1761, to "Prances Hart, of Charles 
Town, the daughter of Moses Hart, at 
present in the Hague in Europe." In the 
Volumes M 5, p. 308, and Z 4, p. 272, dated 
1779, Levi Sheftall is described as being 
"of Charles Town." I shall give an inter- 
esting notice of one of these brothers in 
my next article. 

Of Michael Lazarus I know very little. 
He is in business on King st, on April 24, 
1762. This is the only notice I have of 
him. I believe that the was the father of 
Marks Laaarus, whom we meet later, but 
I am not certain of this. 

PHILIP HART. 

Philip Hart, a native of Poland, was one 
of the officials of Beth Elohim. He was 



also a merchant (S. C. G., May 30, 1761.) 
He was a partner in the business of Sam- 
uel Isaacs, too, at Georgetown, (S. C. G., 
Jan 17, 1761.) 

I s'hall now proceed as far as possible 
chronologically. In the S. C. G. of Aug 
17, 1752, we find an advertisement of Solo- 
mon Isaacs. We already met with him in 
1745. He advertises again on April 24 and 
on Oct 9, 1755. He died before July 14, 
1757, for in the Gazette of that date Peter 
Bacot advertises for the debts due to his 
estate. His will, proved Jan 14, 1757, men- 
tions his newphew, Samson Simson, of 
New York, as one o£ his executors. 

In the South Carolina Gazette of Aug 19, 
1756, we have the first notice of Moses 
Lindo— the most conspicuous Jew in South 
Carolina in Provincial days. I have al- 
ready written of him in detail, and, there- 
fore, will only mention an exceedingly in- 
teresting reference to him. in a contem- 
porary diary: "Journal of a voyage to 
Charlestown in So Carolina, by Pelatiah 
Webster in 1765." Here is the entry: 

"Monday, 3. Dined this day with Mr 
Thomas Listen, a reputable mercht born 
here; is a man of great openess & polite- 
ness, of generous sentiments & very gen- 
teel behaviour; passed the afternoon very 
agreably in his sumer house with him & 
Mr L.indo, a noted Jew, inspector of Indi- 
go here." 

LIEUT JOSEPH LEVY. 

In the volume "Wills," 1754-8, p. 705, there 
is a "Commission from his Excellency to 
Joseph Levy to be Lieutenant of Captain 
Gaillard's Company in the said Regiment 
ut supra." (South Carolina Regiment of 
Foot under the command of Lieut Col 
Probart Howarth.) This commission Is 
dated Sept 3, 1757. 

In the S. C. G. of April 11, 1761, we read 
that "Lieut Levy is arrived at Congarees 
with 32 recruits for Col Middleton's Regl- 



ment from North Carolina." This Lieut 
Levy was one of the officers in the South 
Carolina Regiment in the Cherokee war 
of 1760-1. A copy of his commission, dated 
Sept 23, 1760, is in the office of Mesne Con- 
veyance here. 

We meet with this Joseph Levy in the 
Gazettes. He advertises on November 13, 
1762. His last advertisement appears in 
the S. C. G. of Aug 6, 1772. 

In the S. C. G. of Oct 20, 1759, Isaac Levy 
makes a claim of title to lands in Savan- 
nah which have been announced for sale 
and gives notice to intending purchasers 
that they will buy lands without a clear 
title. He is going to petition his Majesty. 
On Nov 24, he publishes papers in proof of 
his own title. This Isaac Levy was a na- 
tive of New York who lived for some 
years in England. The full story of this 
case and its sequel is told in a paper read 
before the American Jewish Historical 
Society by Dr Herbert Friedenwald. (Vol 
9, pp. 57-62.) 

In the Vol "Inventories," 1758-1763, p. 238, 
there is a document of Israel Levy, mer- 
chant of Charles Town, dated Nov 29, 1759. 

In the S. C. G. of Dec 16, 1760, Isaac 
Pinto advertises as a wholesale wine mer- 
chant. He advertises also on Feb 21, 1761, 
and on Jan 23, 1762. 

On Dec 11, 1763, we meet with Simon 
Hart. 

On Sept 25, 1762, we meet with Imanuel 
Cortissoz. I believe that I found him ear- 
lier, but I did not recognize his name at 
the time. 

In the Gazette of April 24, 1762, we first 
meet with Joshua Hart "on the Bay" He 
advertises steadily till April 28, 1777. On 
November 18, 1777, there is this notice: 

SEIXAS-HART. 

'The same day (Wednesday) Mr Abra- 
ham Mendez Sexias, of the State of Geor- 



gia, was married to Miss Ritoey Hart, a 
young lady of the most amiable qualifica- 
tions, daughter of Mr Joshua Hart, of this 
town." 

This notice is interesting as an early ex- 
ample of inter-marriage between Portu- 
guese and German Jews. Such intermar- 
riages were by no means uncommon here 
in the early days. In later days they 
are exceedingly rare. 

In the Gazette of Sept 10, 1763, we meet 
with Jacob Jacobs. He leaves for Savan- 
nah, but is back again on April 7, 1779. 

On December 31, 1764, Dr Andrew Judah, 
a physician from London, advertises. His 
next advertisement states that he is from 
Holland. I am not certain whether he is 
a Jew. 

In the Gazette of Aug 18, 1766, we read: 
"On Friday, on the ship Queen Charlotte, 
Capt Reeves, from London, arrived 
(among others) Mr Mordecai Sheftall (for 
Georgia) and the Rev Mr Alexander." 

Who is this Rev Mr Alexander? He is 
possibly the Abraham Alexander who 
succeeded Isaac Da Costa as Reader of 
Beth Elohim, though Mr Levin in the 
"Occident" gives the date of his appoint- 
ment as 1764. We cannot always accept 
the statements in the "Occident," how- 
ever. The old writers were not so partic- 
ular about a year or two and many of 
their successors seem to be equally indif- 
ferent as to dates. He served Beth Elo- 
him without remuneration till 1784, when 
he ^resigned. In the Constitution of 1820 
(Rule XX) It Is directed that "the sev- 
enth "escaba" shall be made for Mr Abra- 
ham Alexander, sen, deceased T^ho volun- 
teered his services to perform divine ser- 
vice." He, too, engaged in commercial 
pursuits and was highly respected in the 
community. He was one of the founders 
of Scottish Rite Masonry in Charleston. 
He died in 1816. 



In M. C. Records, Val M. M., 1763-7, p. 
432, there is a deed of Solomon Levi. He 
mentions in it Bernard De Young-. On p. 
579, there is a promissory note of Henry 
Isaacs, dated June 18. 1765, ana on p. 420 
there is a deed of Isaac Ue Juyon, of 
Charles Town, dated "^nne 11, 1766. The 
deed mentions Emanuel Abrauams, whom 
we meet with prominently later. 

On Oct 27, 1766, amongst passengers ar- 
rived, are Mr Franks and daughter. In 
the Postscript to the Gazette of May 11, 
1767, we meet with Philip Abraham and 
Samuel Nunez Cardozo. On June 1, 1767, 
we read that "On ti^s 26th inst Mr Lopez 
and many other passengers embarked for 
Rhode Island." The Lopez family, how- 
ever, did not settle in Charleston till 
after the Revolution. On July 6, 1767, Mr 
Joseph Jacobs arrived from Philadelphia 
and on Aug 3, we have mention of Francis 
Cohen. On Aug 1, IVil, Mordecai Myers 
advertises and again from Georgetown on 
Aug 25, 1772. On Sept 19, 1771 we meet with 
Myer Moses for tiie first time in the 
Gazettes, though he nad been living here 
for some years. On November 1, 1773, 
there is mention maae of Jacob Ramos 
and on December 6, 1773, we read the fol- 
lowing exceedingly interesting notice: 

FRANCIS SALVADOR ARRIVES. 

"More than one hundred passengers are 
come in the vessels that have arrived 
here since our last. Amongst them: 
FRANCIS SALVADOR." 

Picciotto in his "Sketches of Anglo-Jew- 
ish History," pp. 161-4, has given us a 
most interesting history of the Salvador 
family. Strange to say, we in Charleston 
know a great deal more about the iater 
story of two of the most illustrious mem- 
bers of that distinguished family— Joseph 
and Francis Salvador— than he does. Pic- 
ciotto seems to know nothing of their 

13 



later career. I will complete his narrative 
when I come to Joseph Salvador in the 
period after the Revolution. 

Suffice it for the present to say that 
the wealthy family of Salvador was over- 
whelmed by two disastrous misfortunes, 
the earthquake at Lisbon and the failure 
of the Dutch East India Company. These 
calamities brought the Salvadors to the 
brink of ruin. Joseph Salvador was still 
possessed of lands in America— 100,000 
acres in Ninety Six District in South Car- 
olina. In the M. C. Records F 4, p. 243, 
there is a power of attorney from Josepli 
Salvador, Esq, of the City of London, 
merchant, now being in the city of Bris- 
tol, to Richard Andrews Rapley, dated 
Sept 25th, 1769. This document recites that 
Joseph Salvador owns 100,000 acres of land 
in South Carolina, that squatters had set- 
tled upon some of it and that he is about 
to make a right, true and legal recovery 
of all rent or arrears of rent then already 
due and that might thereafter become due 
* ♦ * and to keep others from obtaining 
possession in future, he gives the said 
Rapley, of the city of London, gentleman, 
(then on his departure into foreign parts,) 
his power of attorney to look after his af- 
fairs and authorizes him to sell some 
45,000 acres. This deed is recorded in 
Charleston on Feb 14th, 1774. 

In 1773, Francis Salvador, the nephew 
and son-in-law of Joseph Salvador, deter- 
mined to come to South Carolina and we 
have seen that he arrived in Charleston 
in December of that year. The story re- 
lated in Picciotto that Mrs Joshua Mendes 
Da Costa, the daughter of Joseph Salva- 
dor, gave up a part of her marriage set- 
tlement to furnish funds for Francis Sal- 
vador's expedition, is not probable, nor is 
it borne out by our records here. 

On May 13, 1774, Francis Savador buys 
from Joseph Salvador per Richard An- 



drews Rapley, his attorney, 5160 acres o£ 
land, for a consideration of £14,000 lawful 
money of South Carolina. (O 4, p .12.) On 
May 16 he buys 921 acres more (M 4, p. 
286. On June 1 he buys 300 acres of land 
adjoining his, from Michell Duvall, (M 4, 
p. 282.) 

On Feb 22, 1775, Joseph Salvador conveys 
a large tract of land to Rebecca Mendes 
Da Costa, widow, "to satisfy a judgment 
which the said Rebecca Mendes Da Costa 
had obtained against him," (T 4, p. 1,) and 
on March 8, 1775, Rebecca Mendes Da 
Costa sends to Francis Salvador, now in 
South Carolina, a letter of Attorney au- 
thorizing him to dispose of this land. (R 4, 
p. 430.) This transaction is apparently the 
basis of Picciotto's story, but had nothing 
to do with Francis Salvador's expedition, 
for he had been in South Carolina since 
Dec 1773. 

A DISTINGUISHED CITIZEN. 

Francis Salvador came to South Carolina 
in troublous times. The Revolution was 
brewing. Scarcely had he settled down 
when he threw himself heart and soul in- 
to the movement for independence. He 
came down to Charles Town as a Deputy 
from Ninety Six to the Provincial Con- 
gress of 1775, and such was the confidence 
that he inspired, that he was placed on 
several important committees. He was 
also a Deputy to the second Provincial 
Congress of 1775-6, the Congress which de- 
clared South Carolina an independent 
State. In July 1776, the Indians made a 
raid into Ninety Six District and mur- 
dered quite a number of the inhabitants. 
Col Andrew Williamson, commanding the 
Militia Regiment of Ninety Six District, 
collected his militia and proceeded against 
them and a detachment of regulars was 
sent from^ Charles Town to assist him, 

15 



Salvador seems to have been an aide to 
Col Williamson. At the battle which took 
place at Essenecca he met his tragic fate. 
I cannot give a better description of his 
life and character than that given in the 
2nd Vol of Drayton's "Memoirs," pp. 347-9, 
nor is there a better account of his death 
than that given by Col Williamson in his 
letter to W. H. Drayton, published in 
Gibbes's "Documents," (1764-1776, p. 125.) I 
would only point out that this letter is 
erroneously headed and dated in Gibbes. 
I will let Drayton speak for himself: 

"He was the grandson of Francis Salva- 
dor, and the son of Jacob Salvador, of 
England, who died when his son Francis 
was about two years old. Shortly after 
his father's death, his mother gave birth 
to his brother, Moses, who is still living 
in The Hague, having married a daugh- 
ter of the Baron Suasso. Both of these 
young gentlemen were liberally educated 
by a private tutor and the best master, 
and were taught those accomplishments 
suitable to their wealth and rank in life. 
Upon coming of age, each of them in- 
herited £60,000 sterling, and Francis on his 
return from France, married his first 
cousin, Sarah Salvador, second daughter 
of Joseph Salvador, his uncle; receiving 
with her a portion of £13,000 sterling. Mr 
Francis Salvador, after this marriage, re- 
sided at Twickenham, near his mother 
and step-father, Abraham Prado, but hav- 
ing impaired his fortune by some unfor- 
tunate speculations, he came to South 
Carolina about the end of 1773, intending 
to settle here and have his wife, his son 
and three daughters from England with 
him, but his unfortunate death prevented 
their removal. * * * About the year 1774, 
Mr Francis Salvador purchased lands and 
negroes in South Carolina, and not wish- 
ing to live alone, he resided with his inti- 
mate friend, Richard A. Rapley, at Coro- 

i6 



neka, commonly called Cornacre, in Nine- 
ty Six District. His manners were those 
of a polished gentleman, and as such he 
was intimately known and esteemed by 
the first Revolutionary characters In 
South Carolina. He also possessed their 
confidence in a great degree, as his lit- 
erary correspondences with them suffi- 
ciently proves, and at the time of his 
death both he and his friend, Mr Rapley, 
were of the ten Representatives for Nine- 
ty Six District In the General Assembly of 
South Carolina. When the Irruption of the 
savages brought distress upon his neigh- 
bours and one of their children sought 
refuge at his dwelling from the bloody 
tomahawk, his warm heart directed him 
to their relief. Against the savage foe he 
volunteered his services, and at the side 
of his friend Major Williamson, he re- 
ceived those wounds which sacrificed his 
life in the service of his adopted coun- 
try." 

From now on we meet with many new 
names. I have hitherto gone Into very 
minute detail, and w"hile my note-books 
contain practically exhaustive notices of 
nearly every Individual whom I mention, 
no useful end would be served by com- 
plete references. Newspaper advertise- 
ments and mortgages are very much 
ellke. I would call attention to this point, 
however, that there are very, very few 
men who lived in Charleston whom we 
will not meet In some connection or other 
in the records. I shall henceforth only 
mention names, save where there is ocoa- 
sion for special comment. 

DIRECTORY 1770-1782. 

Here, then, Is a complete directory of 
the Jews whom I find in Charleston be- 
tween the years 1770 and 1782: 

Aaron, Solomon. 

Abrahams, Emanuel. 

17 



Abrahams, Isaac Brisco. 

Abrahams, Joseph. 

Abrahams, Juda. 

Abrahams, Levy. 

Alexander, Abraham. 

Cardozo, David Nunez. 

Cohen, Abraham. 

Cohen, Gershon. 

Cohen, Is. 

Cohen, Jacob. 

Cohen, Moses. 

Cohen, Philip. 

Cohen, Philip Jacob. 

Da Costa, Abraham. 

Da Costa, Isaac, Sr. 

Da Costa, Isaac, Jr. 

Da Costa, Joseph. 

Da Costa, Samuei. 

De La Motta, Emanuel. 
Delyon, Abraham. 

Delyon, Isaac. 

De Palacios, Joseph, Sr. 

De Palacios, Joseph, Jr. 

Eliazer, Moses. 

Harris, Mordecai. 

Harris, Moses. 

Hart, Joshua 

Hart, Philip. 

Jacobs, Israel. 

Jacobs, Jacob. 

Jones, Samuel. 

Joseph, Israel. 

Laaarus, Marks. 

Levi, Solomon. 

Levy, Ezekiel. 

Levy, Hart. 

Levy, Michael. 

Levy, Moses Sim. '■ 

Levy, Nathan. 

Levy, Samuel. 

Minis, Philip. 

Mordecai, Samuel. 

Moses, Abraham. 

Moses, Barnart or Barnard, Sr. 

Moses, Barnart, Jr. 



i8 



Moses, Henry. 

Moses, Jacob. 

Moses, Myer or Meyer. 

Moses, Philip. 

Myers, Joseph. 

Myers, Mordecai. 

Pollock, Samuel. (?) 

Pollock, Solomon, (?) (an express rider.) 

Salomons, Myer. 

Sarzedas, David. 

Sasportas, Abraham. 

Seixas, Abraham. 

Sheftall, Levi. 

Simons, Sampson. 

Simons, Saul. 

Solomo, Zadok. (?) 

Solomons, Joseph. 

Spitzer, Bernard Moses. 

Tobias, Jacob. 

Tobias, Joseph. 

Tores, Benjamin. 

To compile this list I have used every 
possible source of information, both here 
and in Columbia, viz: The various Ga- 
zettes, the records in the offices of Pro- 
bate and Mesne Conveyance, the "Grant 
Books" and finally the tombstones in the 
old cemetery here. I have even incorpo- 
rated some names of persons who have 
letters awaiting them at the postofflce. A 
few of these may not even have been res- 
idents of Charleston at all. Thei-e may be 
two or three who are not Jews and some, 
too, who were not here during the latter 
part of the Revolution. In all there are 
only 68 names. This paves the way for an 
intelligent discussion of the part played in 
the Revolution by the Jews of South Car- 
olina and which I reserve for my next 
article. 



19 



THE DAGGETT PRTQ CO. CHASN. 8. C 



The Jews of 
South Carolina.*. 

t^ ^ «^ «^ 

IlL 

The Jews in the Revolution, 

^ ^ J< Jt 

Copyright The News and Courier, 1903. 

^ J^ ^ ufi 

I have brought my story down to a most 
interesting period. To describe the part 
played by the Jews of South Carolina, or 
rather by the Jews of Charleston, for 
there is nothing in the records, with one 
or two exceptions, as far as I have been 
able to ascertain, of any other Jews of 
South Carolina who saw service in the 
field, is a task quite easy and yet difficult. 
Till now the story has not been written. 
A few traditional tales, distorted accord- 
ing as the imagination of the story-teller 
was more or less vigorous and still fur- 
ther distorted by the imagination of the 
editor, are all that we now possess. No 
attempt has hitherto been made to go to 
original sources. Hence it Is that the list 
of traditional items that found their way 
into the scrappy notices in Leeser's "Oc- 
cident" of fifty years ago have gone the 
rounds of the newspapers and the books, 
and have been so often repeated that they 
have come to be looked upon as narra- 
tives of fact. Read the story of the Jews 
of Charleston where you will, you will 
find nothing but the same old stories told 
over and over again. The trouble with 
all past writers without exception has 
been that they have made no attempt to 
ascertain the facts. Our present data 



are all of them traditions which, while 
containing a germ of truth, are like all 
traditions, largely unreliable. This is 
strange in view of the fact that historical 
material in Charleston is so abundant 
that it it is possible to write the story of 
the Jews of Charleston in the eighteenth 
century in almost as complete detail and 
with the same historical accuracy that 
one could write their history of twenty 
years ago. TTie newspapers are here al- 
most complete. The records are here al- 
most complete. All the historian needs is 
to know where to look, how to look and 
for what to look. This will furnish him 
with the facts and these will testify quite 
as eloquently to the value of the Jew as 
a citizen, as the glittering generalities 
and the specious absurdities that have till 
now passed current as history. We are, 
it seems to me, far enough removed from 
the scene to view the story in its true 
perspective. I shall continue, as before, 
to let the records as far as possible speak 
for themselves. 

THE JEW A GOOD CITIZEN. 

if it be the verdict of history that the 
Jew has been an important factor in the 
material development of every country in 
which he has lived, it is equally true that 
he has everywhere manifested his appre- 
ciation of the protection and freedom 
which have been vouchsafed to him by 
his willngness to bear the full burdens of 
citizenship even to the extent of ungrudg- 
ingly laying down his life in his country's 
defence. One needs no better illustration 
of Jewish patriotism than the story of the 
Jews of South Carolina. To appreciate 
the part that the Jews of this State played 
in the Revolution, however, one must pos- 
sess an adequate knowledge of the his- 
tory of South Carolina as well as a 
knowledge of the local field. Without this 



local knowledge one can at best only 
evolve a more or less imaginative picture 
from his inner consciousness— an un- 
worthy performance in these days of sci- 
entific attainment and honest research. 
But to come back to the story. 

In my last article I printed a list, Which 
I am satisfied is practically exhaustive, 
of all the Jews who were in Charleston 
between 1770 and 1782. I omitted a couple 
of names of men who, like Moses Lindo, 
died prior to 1775. In all there were 08 
names. I would leave my readers under 
an entirely wrong impression, however, if 
I did not give them some further informa- 
tion about this list, Information that will 
change the aspect of this number materi- 
ally. 

Of these 68 names I am morally certain 
that one at least is not a Jew— Solomon 
Pollock. He was an express rider in the 
country and I obtained his name from a 
Revolutionary "indent" in Columbia. I 
have my doubts also about Moses Harris. 
Mordecai Myers belongs to Georgetown and 
is only here at the latter part of the Rev- 
olution. So does Abraham Cohen, though 
he was in the militia of Charleston during 
the siege. Ezekiel Levy has a letter wait- 
ing for him at the postofflce on April 21, 
1779, which is still there on July 9. He 
prooably does not belong here at all. 
Mordecai Harris should be stricken from 
my list. His name appears on a petition 
printed in the South Carolina and Amer- 
ican General Gazette for November 26, 
1778. This petition is half destroyed and I 
have since discovered is a Georgia peti- 
tion. The name of Joseph Solomon should 
be added. Benjamin Tores did not com© 
here till 1782. What has more bearing an 
our discussion, however, is the fact that 
of this number no less than 21 do not ap- 
pear In Charleston prior to 1779. Many of 
them came from Savannah in that year. 



Some came still later. Here is the list: 

Abrahams, Joseph. 

De La Motta, Emanuel. 

De Lyon, Abraham. 

De Lyon, Isaac. 

De Palacios, Joseph. 

Jacobs, Jacob. 

Levy, Hart. 

Levy, Michael. 

Levy, Samuel 

Minis, Philip. 

Moses, Barnart. 

Moses, Jacob. 

Moses, Philip. 

Myers, Joseph. 

Pollock, Samuel. 

Sasportas, Abraham. 

Seixas, Abraham. 

Sheftall, Levi. 

Simons, Sampson. 

Simons, Saul. 

Spitzer, Bernard Moses. 

Joshua Hart left Charleston in 1779 and 
did not return until 1784, when he makes 
an announcement to his old friends and 
customers. Bernard Moses Spitzer like- 
wise leaves for the West Indies in that 
year. It must not be forgotten, too, that 
there were Jews at this time in George- 
town, Camden, Black Mingo and Beau- 
fort, whose names appear in Charleston 
from time to time. With this preliminary 
explanation the way is now clear for a 
better understanding of our inquiry. 

THE STATUS IN 1775-6. 

I will now very briefly indicate the posi- 
tion of South Carolina in the Revolution. 
This is necessary for a correct under- 
standing of what follows. I shall make 
no attempt at fine writing, as my entire 
concern is to bring out the facts. 

South Carolina was a favored colony. 
She had none of the grievances, e. g. of 
Massachusetts. Her trade with the 



mother country was large. Her agricul- 
tural products were sold at good prices to 
England and her industries were fostered 
by generous bounties on the part of the 
home Government. Her only grievance 
was the question of "home rule" and that 
question was of little concern to the peo- 
ple at large. The only aggrieved ones 
were the intellectual and ambitious 
classes and with such a commercial pop- 
ulation could scarcely be expected to be 
in sympathy. The masses were naturally 
hostile to a revolution which threatened 
to disturb the quiet progress of a trade of 
which, having interests unlike those of 
New England, they had nothing to com- 
plain. 

The population of South Carolina, too. 
was a very mixed one. South Carolina 
was an English colony and the English 
are by nature loyal. So are the Scotch 
and they were numerous. The foreign set- 
tlers were opposed to the Revolution, and 
it is only what is to be expected, there- 
fore, that public opinion in South Carolina 
should have been well divided. 

Not that the sentiments of the masses 
were always known. To use a homely il- 
lustration: A merchant to-day, if he is 
wise, does not go out of his way to pro- 
claim his political views to every custom- 
er that enters his store. He could talk 
freely with far more impunity to-day than 
he could have spoken at the beginning of 
the Revolution. The commercial popula- 
tion simply watched the course of events, 
awaited developments and later on showed 
unmistakably where they stood. These 
facts are forcibly set forth in two bril- 
liant articles from the pen of W. Gilmore 
Simms in the July and October numbers 
of the Southern Quarterly Review for 
1848— articles Which ought to be read and 
read again by all who are interested in 
the history of South Carolina. 



Jews are proverbially loyal to the ruling 
Power. As was the case with the rest 
of the population, Jewish sentiment was 
divided. We shall see later that there 
were a number of Jews whose sentiments 
were known to be Pro-British. The num- 
ber of Jews who served In the field, how^ 
ever and who rendered other service to 
the Revolutionary cause— in proportion to 
their total number— was phenomenally 
large. Of this the records leave no doubt. 

THE MILITIA JLAWS. 

Before referring to these records, how- 
ever, it would be well to glance at the 
militia system of South Carolina at the 
outbreak of and during the Revolution. I 
shall only take note of pertinent points. 

Every man between the ages of 16 and 
60 who was able to bear arms was com- 
pelled to enroll himself in some militia 
company. Prior to 1775 he could enroll 
himself in any company he pleased, but 
subsequent to November 20, 1775, he could 
only enroll himself in the district of the 
regiment to which he belonged. (S. C. G. 
November 28, 1775.) 

By a resolution of the Provincial Con- 
gress, dated June 17, 1775, volunteer com- 
panies of not less than fifty might organ- 
ize themselves into a company of foot, 
choosing their own officers. (Supplement 
to S. C. G. September 7, 1775.) 

By the Act of 1778 a company consisted 
of 60 men. (Statutes of South Carolina, 
Vol 9, p 667.) 

In the same Act is it further enacted: 
"That there shall not be formed any vol- 
unteer company in this State after the 
passing of this Act." * * ♦ (Ibid p 667.) 

The duties of a militiaman were "to ap- 
pear completely armed once in every fort- 
night for muster, train and exercise," to 
do patrol duty and to be drafted for a 
limited time— usually 30 or 60 days accord- 
6 



ing to the season of the year, when 
deemed necessary by the Governor or 
Commander-in-Chief. (Ibid. See also Ga- 
zette of the State of South Carolina, 
March 10, 1779.) 

A man could furnish a substitute and 
thus be himself exempt from militia duty. 
S. C. G. March 10, 1779.) 

Amongst those exempt from military 
service are clergymen and teachers, 
(Statutes of South Carolina, Vol 9, p 620.) 

And here I would remark that it would 
seem that these militia laws were not 
very carefully observed. I find one pre- 
sentment after another of the grand juries 
calling attention to their neglect. I would 
likewise point out that every man was not 
physically able to do military duty. Many 
were excused. Moultrie himself tells us 
this in referring to those who surrendered 
after the siege. 

* * * "This threat brought out the aged, 
the timid, the disaffected and the infirm, 
many of them who had never appeared 
during the whole siege. * * * I saw the 
column march out and was surprised to 
see it so large; but many of them we had 
excused from age and infirmities." 
(Memoirs, Vol 2, pp 108-9.) 

We can now proceed intelligently to deal 
wi^h the records. These records are by 
no means as incomplete as we have 
hitherto thought. We have so many side 
sources of Information that I may claim 
that it is possible to present a picture of 
the part that the Jews of South Carolina 
played in the Revolution with almost ab- 
solute fidelity. We must, however, dis- 
miss completely the fictions of the early 
writers. 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION. 

What are these side sources of informa- 
tion? We have first of all the record and 
pension oflice and the bureau of pensions 

7 



at Washington; we have a vast number 
of Revolutionary records in this State. 
There is that wonderful Emmet Collection 
in the New York Public Library. There 
are a number of contemporary diaries 
available to us. There are the tombstones 
in our cemetery, and lastly the files of 
the newspapers, which rarely fail to men- 
tion military services in the obituary no- 
tices of deceased patriots. We have seen 
what Jews were here during th'e Revolu- 
tion. We shall soon see what a large por- 
tion of them we can account for. Let us 
now proceed with the story, which is plain 
sailing. 

The first real fighting in which the 
Charles Town militia were called into ser- 
vice—but the Charles Town militia took 
no part in the fight— was the battle of 
Fort Moultrie in June, 1776. Fort Moultrie 
was garrisoned by South Carolina regulars 
and the battle was fought by them alone. 
Of course the militia were in service in 
Charles Town, but they took no part in 
the engagement. There were quite a num- 
ber of Jews In the Charles Town militia. 
Who they were I shall tell later. There do 
not appear to have been any Jews 
amongst the South Carolina regulars. 

The result of the battle of Fort Moul- 
trie was to insure undisturbed peace to 
South Carolina from June, 1776, to May, 
1779. Trade went on pretty much as usual. 
The people married and gave in marriage, 
and beyond internal dissensions on ao- 
count of the Loyalists there is nothing 
to be noted of interest. 

LUSHINGTON'S COMPANY. 

Between 1776 and 1778 Richard Lushing- 
ton was promoted to be captain in the 
Charles Town regiment of militia. His 
company Included nearly all of the Jews 
of Charles Town who fought in the Rev- 
olution, and that for reasons we have al- 



ready seen. Soldiers had to enroll them- 
selves in the district In which they lived. 
Richard Lushington's district extended on 
King street, from Broad street to Charles 
Town Neck— the modern Calhoun street. 
King street was then as now a principal 
business street and most of the Jews had 
their stores there. I could give the list of 
Jews who lived on King street, but this 
would serve no useful purpose. Of the 
names of Lushington's company that have 
come down to us I have in a former arti- 
cle pointed out, the Jewish names are in a 
decided minority. 

Lushington's company took part in sev- 
eral engagements. It fought in the battle 
of Beaufort in February, 1779. Here Jo- 
seph Solomon was killed. (Gazette of the 
State of South Carolina. March 10, 1779.) 
The Charles Town militia likewise took 
part in the attempt to recapture Savan- 
nah in the same year. Here David Nu- 
nez Cardozo distinguished himself. (See 
inscription on his tombstone here, also 
obituary notice in the Charleston Courier 
of July 10, 1835.) 

That the Jews both of Charles Town 
and Savannah had done their full duty to 
the patriot cause is attested by a splen- 
did piece of uncontradicted contemporary 
testimony. 

AN EXTRAORDINARY LETTER. 

I remember listening some twenty years 
ago— long before I left England— to a 
powerful Jewish sermon on the subject of 
"How Shall we Answer Calumny?" The 
preacher referred to the over-sensitiveness 
of Jews and their tendency to rush into 
print whenever any allusion was made to 
them which might be construed into a 
real or imaginary offence. He warned hia 
hearers that we Jews should be careful 
not to manifest irritation at the writings 



of every anonymous scribbler. If the de- 
fence becomes perpetuated, so does the 
attack. He illustrated his theme by a 
reference to the book of Josephus against 
Apion. This blundering ignoramus would 
never have been heard of but for Jose- 
phus's reply. I was forcibly reminded of 
both the sermon and the illustration 
when I came across the following letter in 
the South Carolina and American General 
Gazette of December 3, 1778. Mrs Crouch's 
paper containing the libel is no longer in 
existence, and while the attack has come 
down to us by reason of the reply, we 
have in this instance at least no cause to 
regret it. The style of the letter is quaint, 
but its contents are telling. Here it is: 

MR WEI>LS, 

On perusing Mrs Crouch 
and Co's paper of the 1st instant, I was 
extremely surprised to find, in a piece 
signed AN AMERICAN, a signature suf- 
ficient to lead every honest and judicious 
man to imagine, that whatever was said 
in so publick a manner, should Be ingenu- 
ous and true, assertions directly contrary. 
Here are his words: 

"Yesterday being by my business posted 
in a much frequented corner of this town, 
I observed, in a small space of time, a 
number of chairs and loaded horses be- 
longing to those who journeyed, come into 
town.— Upon inspection of their faces and 
enquiry, I found them to be of the TRIBE 
OF ISRAEa:,— who, after taking every ad- 
vantage in trade the times admitted of in 
the State of Georgia, as soon as it was at- 
tacked' by an enemy, fled here for an asy- 
lum, with their ill-got wealth— dastardly 
turning their backs upon the country when 
in danger, which gave them bread and pro- 
tection—Thus it will be in this State if it 
should ever be assailed bj' our enemies — 
Let judgment take place." 



I am apt to think, Mr Printer, that the 
gentleman Is either very blind, or he is 
willing to make himself so; for I am well 
convinced, had he taken the trouble of 
going closer to the chairs, he would have 
found that what he has thus publickly as- 
serted was erroneous and a palpable mis- 
take, as he might have been convinced 
they were of the female kind, with their 
dear babes, who had happily arrived at 
an asylum, where a tyrannical enemy was 
not at theirs or their dear offsprings 
heels. I do, therefore, in vindication of 
many a worthy Israelite now in Georgia, 
assert, that there is not, at this present 
hour, a single Georgia Israelite in Charles 
Town; and that so far to the contrary of 
that gentleman's assertion, I do declare 
to the Publick, that many merchants of 
that State were here on the 22d ult, and 
on being informed of the enemy landing, 
they instantly left this, as many a worthy 
Gentile knows, and proceeded post haste 
to Georgia, leaving all their concerns un- 
settled, and are now with their brother 
citizens in the field, doing that which 
every honest American should do. 

The truth of this assertion will, in the 
course of a few days, be known to gentle- 
men of veracity, who are entitled to the 
ippellation of Americans. The Charles- 
town Israelites, I bless Heaven, hitherto 
have behaved as staunch as any other citi- 
zens of this State, and I hope their fur- 
ther conduct will be such as will invali- 
date the malicious and designing fallacy 
of the author of the piece alluded to. 
I am. Sir, Yours, etc, 
A real AMERICAN, 
and 
True hearted ISRAELITE. 

Charleston, Wednesday, December 2, 
1778. 



We next meet with Lushington's com- 
pany at the siege of Charles Town in 1780. 
Here our information concerning the Jews 
who fought in the militia is most com- 
plete. The original papers of Gen Lin- 
coln, who was In command of the Ameri- 
can army in South Carolina in 1780, are 
still In existence and are to be seen in 
the "Emmet Collection" in the New York 
Public Library. Appreciating the value 
of this priceless collection, our Ex-Mayor 
Courtenay, whose services in preserving 
and rendering available rare documents 
relating to South Carolina cannot be over- 
estimated by our people, and with him our 
present Mayor J. Adger Smyth, incor- 
porated many valuable documents from 
this collection, relating to the siege of 
Charlestown, into the "Year Book" for 
1897. Three of these documents are espe- 
cially interesting in our investigation. 

JEWS IN THE SIE3GE. 

The defence of Charles Town is unique 
in the history of beleaguered cities. That 
it withstood a siege of two months against 
such overwhelming odds must excite the 
admiration of all Who read the story. Its 
doom was sealed from the first, but not 
until provisions had given out and all the 
ammunition was practically spent; not 
until the British were within twenty 
yards of the American lines, and every 
hope of assistance was cut off, was there 
ever a thought of surrender. But the in- 
evitable came at last. All hope being gone 
and further resistance being impossible, 
to avoid a useless slaughter the principal 
inhabitants of Charles Town and a num- 
ber of the country militia petitioned Gen 
Ijlncoln to surrender. These petitions 
have came down to us and on them are 
many Jewish names. There are three 
lists— one of civilians containing 300 



names appended, including many Jews, 
another of country militia with 111 names, 
but no Jews, and a third, of country mili- 
tia, with 345 names appended, In- 
cluding many Jews. I reproduce 
the two p^etitions that contain 
the names of Jews with their fac simile 
signatures. One of these signers, Joseph 
Myers (?)— the name is illegible— it will be 
seen, tries to make "his mark" in script 
Hebrew. From his Hebrew signature 
"Joseph," he appears to be almost as il- 
literate in that language as he was in 
English. I am Indebted to Mayor Smyth 
for his courtesy in permitting these repro- 
ductions and for the loan of the cuts. 
Here, then, are the petitions: 

PETITIONS TO GEN LINCOLN. 

I. 

To the Honorable Major General Lin- 
coln— 

The Humble petition of divers Inhabi- 
tants of Charleston in behalf of them- 
selves and others, their fellow citizens— 

Sheweth 

That your petitioners being In- 
form'd the difficulties that arose in the 
Negotiation yesterday, and the day pre- 
'^edlng, related wholly to the Citizens, to 
whom the British Commanders offer'd 
their estates, and to admit them to their 
parole as Prisoners of War; and your pe- 
titioners understanding it is an indisputa- 
ble proposition, that they can derive no 
advantage by a perseverance in resist- 
ance; with every thing that is dear to 
them at stake, they think it their Indis- 
pensable duty, in this perilous situation 
of affairs, to request your Honor will send 
out a flag, in the name of the people. In 
timating their acquiescence in the terms 
propounded. 

Charleston, 10th May, 1780. 

13 



(Three hundred names are attached to 
this petition. Among them are:) 
Markes Lazarus. 
Solomon Aaron. 
Philip Minis. 
Is Da Costa, Jr. 
Joseph Solomons (x.) 
Gershon Cohen. 
Jacob Jacobs. 
Zadok Solomo? 
Meyer Moses. 
Joseph de Palacios. 
Philip Hart. 
David Sarzedas. 
Abraham Moses. 
Joseph De Palacios. 
Joseph Myers (x) 



II. 



To the Honorable Major General Liln- 
coln 

The Humble petition of divers Country 
Militia on behalf of themselves and others 
their fellow citizens— 

Sheweth 

That your petitioners being in- 
form'd the difficulties that arose in the ne- 
gotiation yesterday and the day preceding 
related wholly to the Citizens to whom 
the British commanders offered their es- 
tates and to admit them to their parole as 
prisoners of w^ar, and your petitioners un- 
derstanding it as an Indisputable propo- 
sition that they can derive no advantage 
from a perserverance in resistance, with 
every thing that is dear to them at stake, 
they think it their Indispensable duty In 
this perilous situation of affairs, to re- 
quest your Honor will send out a Flag In 
the name of the people Intimating their 
acquiescence In the terms proposed.— 






^l<^^/«/ 






V-' 



/i^/i^-!. y^.^£ i i* j»» oc -«-* 



i^*^^^^*xc.ejj 4a>Tey!^^*^^«^ y^^^ln.j, y^^lL^ ^\ 






. . 'S^xS^^^ 

-__^^^ ^"iiPjf^M^ O^f^^^ 



^A^^ 



^ 



A^' SZ^C^^^ 



n 



j^^tf^jt^^u 



% 



%^';!i: 













»<^y/>fc g^^>>>^^,^-r> 











(Here are appended the names of Field- 
officers and men— in all 345 namea, 
amongst which are the following:) 

Philip Moses. 

Abraham Cohen. 

Myer Salomons. 

Moses Harris (?) 

Philip Jacob Cdhen. 

Jacob Moses. 

Juda Abrahams. 

Moses Cohen. 

Emanuel Abrahams. 

Samuel Polak. 

Samuel Jones. 

Barnard Moses, Junr. 

I. Cohen. 

Samuel Mordecai. 



OTHER JEWISH SOLDIERS. 

We have on this last petition the names 
of 13 and possibly of 14 Charles Town 
Jews who served in the militia during the 
siege. There are several others whose 
names haVe come down to us. 

Marks Lazarus, who is apparently a 
civilian, in May 1780, saw service in 1776, 
1779 and 1780. He was a sergeant major. I 
have before me a copy of his war record 
from the bureau of pensions. (See also 
obituary notice in the "Southern Patriot" 
of November 7, 1835.) He was afterwards 
one of the petitioners to Clinton, 

David Nunez Cardoza was also a ser- 
geant major. I have already referred to 
him. His obituary notice informs us that 
"he marched with the Grenadier corps 
from Charleston to the Lines before Sa- 
vannah, and as first non-commissioned 
officer of Capt Boquet's company, volun- 
teered and led the Forlorn Hope in the 
assault on the British lines." 

Abraham Seixas was a captain of mili- 
tia here, but fought as a lieutenant in the 
Continental line in Georgia. He went to 

15 



Philadelphia in 1782, but returned to 
Charleston later. 

Joseph Solomon we have already seen 
was killed at the battle of Beaufort. 

Jacob Cohen we are told in the "Diary 
of Josiah Smith, Jr," was "one of the 
prisoners on parole, that were sent on 
board the prison ship Torbay and Schoon- 
er Pack Horse, the 17th of May, 1781." It 
is worthy of note that his name is not 
mentioned in any of the lists of these 
prisoners in Garden, Moultrie, Ramsay, 
Drayton, Gibbes or McCrady. 

Of Jacob I. Cohen, who is referred to by 
all writers, I have till now found no men- 
tion in any of the records here. Nor have 
I found anything with reference to Capt 
Jacob De T-.eon, or Capt Jacob De La 
Motta, of Charleston, who are supposed 
to have fought at the battle of Camden. 
I would like to have some authority for 
the story that these men together with 
Major Nones carried off the wounded De 
Kalb from the field. It is strange that 
none of the contemporary writers mention 
it. It is remarkable, too, that Lossing, 
who has preserved so many traditions in 
his "Field Book of the Revolution"— and 
he is particularly gossippy in his story of 
this battle— should know nothing about it. 

The names I have mentioned are all 
that I have till now been able to discover 
in the records. There may be some more 
that I may yet find, but these will not be 
many. It would be unreasonable to expect 
it. An entire population never fights, but 
those who don't fight or who are physi- 
cally unable to fight— and these will al- 
ways form a goodly portion of a popula- 
tion—are able to render other service that 
Is equally valuable. As a matter of fact, 
during the siege of Charleston, the trou- 
ble was not the lack of men. All the early 
writers have noted the fact that had there 
been more men, the only purpose they 

i6 



could have served would have been to 
make provisions scarce in a shorter time. 
Of men who rendered good service to the 
American cause and who were not flg-ht- 
ers we have also documentary evidence. 

PATRIOTIC CIVILIANS. 

In the North American Review for July, 
1826, p 73, Isaac Harby referring to the 
Jews in the Revolution writes: "My ma- 
ternal grandfather contributed pecuniary 
aid to South Carolina, and particularly to 
Charleston, when besieged by the Brit- 
ish. My father-in-law was a brave gren- 
adier in the regular American army, and 
fought and bled for the liberty he lived 
to enjoy, and to hand down to his chil- 
dren." The maternal grandfather of Isaac 
Harby was Meyer Moses and his father- 
in-law was Samuel Mordecai. To the ser- 
vices rendered by Meyer Moses Gen Sum- 
ter testified in after years in a letter to 
Franklin J. Moses, a grandson of the 
Jewish patriot, who had died in 1787. There 
were, and I believe still are, in Columbia 
the original letter and a testimonial from 
Oen Sumter of similar purport. I re- 
produce only the latter: 

South Mount, October 11, 1831. 

I certify that I was well acquainted with 
Myer Moees, Esq, Merchant In Charles- 
ton, So, Ca. I understood and believed 
that he was friendly and attached to the 
American cause during the Revolution. I 
further understood and believe that his 
treatment to the American wounded and 
prisoners were such as to entitle him to 
the good wishes and gratitude of all those 
who had the success of the Revolution at 
heart. After the fall of Charleston his 
treatment to the wounded and prisoners 
Who were taken and sent to Charleston 
was extremely friendly and humane, they 
being in the greatest possible distress. 

17 



Moreover I have understood and believed 
that on these occasions he expended a 
considerable sum in relieving them, 

(Signed) Thos Sumter. 

Mordecai Myers, of Georgetown, was an- 
other man who furnished supplies to the 
American army. (See Gibbes's "Docu- 
ments," (1781-2,) pp 182-3. See, however, 
also Gibbes (1776-1782,) p 160, "Gen Marion 
to Col P. Horry.") 

LOYALISTS IN CHARLESTON. 

I have already referred in this article, to 
the division of sentiment that existed 
among the population of South Carolina 
and of Charleston at the outbreak of and 
during the Revolution. The Gazettes 
print the names of some who "embarked 
under an unhappy delusion" for other 
parts. (See list in Gazette of the State of 
South Carolina for July 8, 1778.) We read 
of many who "left the State to join the 
enemies thereof." (Ibid! November 24, 
1779.) Charleston, in fact, wa^ full of Brit- 
ish sympathizers— witness the large lists 
of petitioners to Clinton, of addressers 
of Cornwallis and of Clinton and Ar- 
burthnot. In conversation with Moultrie, 
after the surrender, Capt Rochfort, a 
British officer, remarked: "Sir, you have 
made a gallant defence, but you had a 
great many rascals among you who came 
out every night and gave us information 
of what was passing in your garrison." 
(Moultrie's Memoirs, Vol 2, p 108.) Many 
at first, naturally enough, were very care- 
ful as to how they betrayed their real 
sentiments. When Charleston surrendered, 
however, they did not hesitate to show 
what their sentiments really were, others 
thinking that South Carolina would finally 
remain a British province, and hoping to 
save their property, sincerely returned to 
their allegiance. Still others were by ne- 
cessity compelled to accept British pro- 

i8 



taction. (See Ramsay's South Carolina, 
pp 120 et seq.) 

Referring to the Jewish merchants, 
Ramsay remarks that: "While prisoners, 
they were encouraged to make purchase* 
from the British merchants who came 
with the conquering army, and after they 
had contracted large debts of this kind, 
were precluded by proclamation from sell- 
ing the goods they had purchased, unless 
they assumed the name and character of 
British subjects." (Ibid.) This could only 
have been the case with a minority. 
The majority did not take protection or 
swear allegiance, but left C?harles Town 
after the surrender. 

PE3TITIONS TO CLINTON. 

About August or September, 1780, many 
citizens of Charles Town presented a pe- 
tition to the Commandant setting forth 
"that they were very desirous to show 
every mark of allegiance and attachment 
to his Majesty's person and Government, 
to which they were most sincerely well 
affected, and, therefore, humbly prayed 
that they might have an opportunity to 
evince the sincerity of their profeesione." 
This petition was referred to "gentlemen 
of known loyalty and integrity, as well 
as knowledge of the persons and charac- 
ters of the inhabitants, in order to repbrt 
the manner In which the Memorialists 
had heretofore conducted themselves." 
This committee reported favorably in the 
cases of 166 citizens, including the follow- 
ing Jews: 

Joseph Myers. 

Saul Simons. 

Abraham Alexander. 

Moses Eliazer. 

Philip Cohen. 

Marcus Lazarus. 

Philip Moses. 

(The Royal South Carolina Gazette, Sep- 
tember 21, 1780.) 

19 



Of these Marcus (Marks) Dazarus and 
Philip Moses had been soldiers in the war, 
and for some or other reason now swore 
allegiance. Abraham -Alexander was the 
minister of Beth Elohim and the Syna- 
gogue constitution of 1820, (Rule XX,) 
tells us that Rabbi Moses Eleizar wae "a 
learned man in the laws of God, and until 
his death had taught the youth of this 
congregation and manifested tmremitted 
zeal to promote religion in this country." 
There is no evidence to show and no rea- 
son for supposing that these men were 
not expressing their real convictions when 
they signed the petition to Sir Henry Clin- 
ton. It is worthy of note that in a subse- 
quent petition for protection of 211 citi- 
zens, published in the Royal Gazette of 
July 11, 1781, nothing is said about the pe- 
tition being referred to a committee of 
citizens of known loyalty and integrity, 
etc. In this second petition such a refer- 
ence was unnecessary. The petitioners 
had been admittedly Anti-British. 

The Royal Gazette and the Royal South 
Carolina Gazette, published during the pe- 
riod of British occupation, show the fol- 
lowing Jews as doing business here during 
that period: 

Joseph Abrahams. 

Jacob Jacobs. 

Delyon and Moses 

Isaac Delyon. 

Gershon Cohen. 

Emanuel Abrahams. 

Abraham Cohen. 

Abraham Da Costa. 

Of these Emanuel Abrahams and Abra- 
ham Cohen had fought in the war. All of 
these men, however, must either have 
taken protection after the surrender or 
have been known to have been Well af- 
fected or at least not openly hostile to the 
British cause. Most of them had been do- 
ing business here right along since 17TO. 



Those whose sentiments were known to 
have been hostile were sought out by the 
British and banished. Amongst these was 
Isaac Da Costa, Sr, whose estates we 
have seen were promptly seized and con- 
fiscated by the British and himself ban- 
ished. We have likewise seen Jacob Oohen 
put on board the prison ship. 

Isaac Delyon was a known Tory and his 
property was amerced after the Revolu- 
tion. He came here in 1779. There would 
doubtless have been other amercements, 
but the records do not show any wealth 
among the Jews who remained here in 
business during the period of British occu- 
pation. Levi Sheftall was likewise a Loy- 
alist. Be it ever remembered, however, 
that there was as much true patriotism 
in the Loyalist as there was in the most 
ardent Revolutionist. 

In my search in Columbia I examined 
many thousands of "indents," or certifi- 
cates entitling the holder to payment of 
sums due for services rendered in the 
war. There was not a single one made 
out in favor of a Jew. The date of these 
indents explained the reason. They were 
all for services rendered subsequent to 
1780. After May, 1780, the Charles Town 
militia were prisoners on parole and very 
few afterwards took the field. Some did, 
but there was a special reason in their 
case. We know what became of the Jew- 
ish population. 

THE MAJORITY STEADFAST. 

Most of the Jewish merchants did not 
and would not take protection, but left 
for Philadelphia after the surrender of 
Charles Town, and in 1782 we find 10 
Charles Town Jews in the list of original 
members of the Mickveh Israel Congrega- 
tion. There were other Jews, doubtless, 
who do not appear on the list. (See Mo- 
rals "Jews of Philadelphia," p 15.) The ten 



names I refer to are those of Isaac Da 
Costa, Sr, Isaac Da Costa, Jr, Samuel Da. 
Costa, Philip Moses, Israel Jacobs, Jacob 
Cohen, Ezekiel Levy, Abraham Sasportas, 
Abraham Selxas and Solomon Aaron. 
These men came back afterwards when 
peace was restored. So much, then, for 
the evidence of the records. 

I must now say a word about the tra- 
ditional story. The most careful investi- 
gation has failed to reveal the large num- 
ber of Jews who are supposed to have 
borne arms in the Revolution. Men who 
write history ought to have some sense of 
proportion. I believe that my list is prac- 
tically exhaustive and that I am perfectly 
safe in asserting that never at any time 
during the Revolution were there 60 Jews 
in Charleston between the ages of 16 and 
60. It is highly improbable that there 
were 50, and of these, of course, many 
did not fight. This we know positively. 

There is another way, however, in which 
we arrive at the same conclusion. We are 
told that in 1791 Beth Elohim Congregation 
consisted of 53 families, numbering up- 
wards of 400 persons. So complete has 
been my investigation that if I desired to 
do so I could enumerate these and go 
even into the details of their family his- 
tory. We know who came here after the 
Revolution, when they came here and 
where they came from. By this double 
method of calculation the chances of er- 
ror are reduced to very narrow limita. 
Three or four names may yet be brought 
to light and perhaps as many who served 
in the militia, but more than this number 
I do not believe will ever be found. 
TRADITIONS UPSET. 

But how about the company of Jews 
which is referred to by every past writer 
and the company of volunteers command- 
ed by Capt Richard Lushlngton and or- 
ganized in 1779? Prior to 1779, in which 



year, as we have seen, there was a large 
accession from Savannah, a company com- 
posed entirely or almost entirdly of Jews 
is a manifest Impossibility. A company 
of volunteers in 1779 is likewise an impos- 
sibility, in view of the Act of 1778, which 
declared that "there shall not be formed 
any volunteer company in this State after 
the passing- of this Act." This is surely 
conclusive. Of Lushington's company we 
have information from several sources. 
He must have commanded about 60 men. 
Several rolls of militia companies are in 
existence and they all contain about this 
number and the Act itself prescribes thi.s 
number as a company. I have the names 
of over 20 Non-Jews in his command. This 
speaks for itself. 

It is easy enough to account for the tra- 
dition In this case. We have seen that 
nearly all the Jews of Charleston who 
fought, fought In Lushington's command. 
We have seen also the reason of this. 
From the number of Jews in this company 
it got the name of the "Jew Company." 
Forty years afterwards, time enough for 
legend and fancy to have had full play, 
we find the writers and speakers— and 
there was some excuse for them— referring 
to Lushington's company of Jews. In fur- 
nishing material for a plea for toleration 
for the Jews of Maryland a little exag- 
geration was pardonable, particularly in 
the early days, but there is no such ex- 
cuse for men who undertake to write his- 
tory. Historians do not incorporate news 
paper clippings into their work without 
investigation, nor do such newspaper clip- 
pings even when used in debate become 
authoritative sources of reference. Such 
"authorities" are good enough for men 
who only use second-hand sources of in- 
formation in their work and who under- 
take to write a hundred years of history 
in as many minutes. It is not to the 

23 



credit of our time that such superficial 
work is received with approbation. 

Need I say anything about that other 
statement— the "remarkable fact" that 
nearly all the Jews who served on the field 
served as ofl[icers? It is on the face of it 
so puerile that I will not even discuss it. 
With the exception of Capt Seixas, there 
were a few non-commissioned ofl^cers, but 
these are only officers by courtesy. A 
company of Jews— and nearly all officers! 
Kentucky is not as original as we have 
been led to believe. 

And is not the tale that the facts unfold 
glorious enough? The Jews of South Car- 
olina furnished the Revolution with Fran- 
cis Salvador, one of its most trusted lead- 
ers. In proportion to their numbers they 
furnisTied at least as many men as did 
their neighbors and gave as freely of their 
means to the cause. I claim no more, but 
is it not enough? 



THE DAQQETT PRTQ CO. CHASN. S. C. 



THE JEWS OF 
SOUTH CAROLINA . , . 



fj^ j^ tfi ^ 



A Survey of the Records 
at Present Existing in Charleston. 



...BY... 
Dr. BARNETT A* ELZAS, 

Rabbi of K. K. Beth Elohim. 

^^W ^^^ ^^^ 4^^ 

IV 
J 783— 1800. 

•^ ^ «^ J^ 

[Reprinted from the Charleston News and Courier, May, 1903.] 



The Jews of 
South Carolina*** 

v^ %i^ J^ «^ 

IV. 
J783— J800. 
«^ o* «^ «^ 

[Reprinted from The News and Courier.] 
^ J^ Jft Jft 

With the present article I taring my 
sketches of the Jews of South Carolina to 
an end. The most interesting part of the 
story remains yet to be told. I am reserv- 
ing that for my book, which I hope to see 
published next year. It will take me many 
months of patient work, however, before 
I can sift and digest the almost endless 
material that I have gathered during the 
last eight years. To collate carefully the 
long-lost records of K. K. Beth Elohlm is 
Of itself a formidable task. 

Before proceeding to-day, however, I 
regret that I have again to pay a little at- 
tention to the notable Huhner, of New 
York. I thought that I had done with 
him, but he is apparently very dissatis- 
fied. I begrudge the space that I am giv- 
ing up to him, for he is literally incor- 
rigible. There are some, however, who 
are Interested in this matter, who keep 
newspaper clippings, and who may happen 
to have preserved that gentleman's "last 
word" in the American Hebrew. (P 493.) 
For them I propose to keep the record 
straight, Huhner and the American He- 
brew notwithstanding. I do not propose 
either to allow the impression to be given 
that my criticism was in any way unfair 
or unwarranted. 



Of the twenty undeniable mistakes of 
fact in Mr Huhner's thousand-word arti- 
cle he selects eight in which he imagrines 
he has a g-ood defence. He even under- 
takes to correct our ignorance. We shall 
see how well he succeeds. I shall refer 
to his statements in the order in which 
they are made in his "last word:" 

First. As to Myer Moses. Says Mr Huh- 
ner: "Nowhere, either in the Year Book 
for 1886 or in the Statutes, do we find Jr 
after Mr Moses's name, and the name is 
invariably found as Myer, not Meyer, as 
Mr Salley has it." Mr Huhner is right. 
The writer in the year book does not add 
Jr to the name, nor had he any occasion 
to do so. Had he dreamt, however, that 
the time might come when Mr Huhner 
would undertake to write on the history 
of South Carolina and make a man who 
had died in 1787 either a member of the 
Legislature in 1810, or a Commissioner of 
Education in 1812, he would doubtless have 
added this landmark and other infoi-ma- 
tion for his guidance, but unfortunately 
he was not to know this. As for the spell- 
ing "Meyer," which Mr Huhner thinks is 
invariably "Myer," it is interesting to ob- 
serve that the father wrote his own name 
"Meyer Moses"— I published his autograph 
signature recently— and in the office of 
mesne conveyance here, where the deeds 
are supp>osed to be true copies of the orig- 
inals, the name of the son is never spelt 
in any other way. 

Mr Huhner next proceeds to enlighten 
us as to what is meant when "we" sp>eak 
of board of education, and claims again 
that the Act of 1811 was the beginning of 
the public school system as such in South 
Carolina. "This is the view," says Mr 
Huhner, "taken by all writers of impor- 
tance." This is Mr Huhner, but not fact. 
McCrady will certainly be accepted as a 



1 



writer of importance on matters relating 
to South Carolina; indeed, this distin- 
guished author has given us the most 
comprehensive study on this subject that 
has till now appeared. Let the student 
read McCrady's essay on "Education in 
South Carolina" in Volume 4 of the Collec- 
tions of the South Carolina Historical So- 
ciety, and he will find overwhelming proof 
that the public school system of South 
Carolina, was a gradual evolution and that 
the Act of ISll merely modified the system 
that had been in existence uninterruptedly 
for over 100 years. In this essay, which 
was considered of sufficient importance 
to be reproduced by the United States 
Bureau of Education, McCrady mercilessly 
exposes the superficiality of McMaster and 
no one familiar with the literature of the 
history of South Carolina would to-day 
think of quoting that writer as an au- 
thority. Such authorities are good enough 
for historical scribblers and historical "in- 
corporators," but we have a right to de- 
mand better knowledge of the sources 
from men who write in encyclopaedias 
and who proclaim themselves specialists. 

With reference to Moses Lindo, Mr Huh- 
ner can only repeat what he said in his 
first letter, as though repeating what he 
said in his first letter would alter the fact 
that he had stated in his paper that Moses 
Lindo was "among those who were in the 
army," or that "Inspector Ceneral for 
South Carolina," as he calls him in his ar- 
ticle in the Encyclopaedia, is meaningless 
except as a military title. 

Mr Huhner again tangles himself up 
with Salvador. In his article Mr Huhner 
informed us that Salvador was a mem- 
ber of the "Colonial Assembly" as early 
as 1774. I will not go over the ground 
again — it seems to be too much for him— 
but will merely point out that not a 



single one of Mr Huhner's authorities 
show him to be a member of any body 
earlier than 1775. Perhaps Mr Huhner's 
mind can take so much in. 

Mr Huhner next tells how it came to 
pass that he knew nothing about Jewish 
Tories in Charleston. Though the Peti- 
tion to Clinton is referred to by McCrady, 
that author does not specifically mention 
the Jewish names, nor are they given in 
any of Mr Huhner's books, so that it is 
unfair to say that he ought to have known 
about them. He knew that Sabine's "Loy- 
alists" mentioned Isaac Delyon; he knew 
that Isaac Delyon had been amerced as a 
citizen of South Carolina, but further re- 
search (sic) convinced him that the indi- 
vidual mentioned belonged to Georgia! 
"Mr Salley is in error," he says, "in con- 
cluding that Isaac Delyon belonged to 
Charleston. He probably had some prop- 
erty there, but that was all. The author- 
ities mentioned by Mr Salley do not refer 
to a South Carolina Tory." (!) Mr Huh- 
ner is really funny, though he does not 
seem to possess a very keen sense of hu- 
mor. Mr Salley, of course, knew what he 
was writing about— Mr Huhner makes the 
story up as he goes along. Isaac Delyon 
became a resident of Charles Town early 
in 1779. He advertises regularly in the 
Gazettes for many years, at first in part- 
nership with Barnart Moses, then in busi- 
ness by himself. The deeds— and there are 
many of them In the office of mesne con- 
veyance here— describe him as "Of Charles 
Town, merchant," yet Mr Huhner, with an 
assurance that is amazing, boldly tells his 
readers that "he probably had some prop- 
erty there, but that was all." Nor is he 
any more successful in his attempt to 
show that Mordecai Sheftall was Commis- 
sary General for South Carolina and Geor- 
gia. His own authorities refute his con- 
tention. 

4 



Most remarkable, finally, is Mr Huhner's 
defence of Lushington's company of Jews, 
and this in the face of the evidence that 
was adduced against it. We have, he 
says, the positive statement of Col Worth- 
ington in 1824, a letter to Jared Sparks, 
and even a statement in Fishell's 
"Chronological notes" prepared in 1860. 
We are not warranted in disregarding 
such "positive proof!" I do not think it 
necessary to add anything to what I have 
already written on this subject. There is 
no doubt about it, Mr Huhner is a genius. 
I regret that my style of criticism does 
not appeal to him. I confess that I don't 
like it myself, but I like Mr Huhner's 
methods still less, in dealing with which 
one need not be too particular as to the- 
choice of ways and means. But I must re- 
turn to my subject. 

In my monograph on Joseph Salvador 1 
thought that I had exhausted the refer- 
ences to him in the records of South Car- 
olina. There is one document, however, 
that I had not found by reason of the fact 
that it was not recorded here till 1804. For 
the sake of oompleteness I will mention 
it here. It shows that Joseph Salvador 
was still poorer than I imagined him 
when he came to South Carolina. The 
deed is recorded in the office of mesne 
conveyance on September 19, 1804. (N 7, 
p 140.) It is dated March 2, 1775, between 
Joseph Salvador on the first part, and 
Phineas Serra, Moses Isaac Levey (Levy,) 
Emanuel Baruk Louvado (Louisada.) 
Nathan Modigliani, Solomon D'Anynilar 
(D'Aguilar,) Samuel Haine, Joseph Fran- 
co, David Franco, Jacob Consalo, (Con- 
sales,) Rebecca Mendes Decosta, Benja- 
min D'Anynilar, (D'Aguilar,) Jacob Fran- 
co, Francis Franco— all of London— who 
had advanced and lent to him the sum of 



£3,000 in certain proportions. He makes 
over to them 59,900 acres of land excepting 
such tracts as had been already sold by 
Rapley, his attorney, and the tract se- 
cured to Rebecca Mendes Da Costa. 



My story to-day will cover the period 
from the end of the Revolution to the 
year 1800. There is nothing very remarlc- 
able that happened in this period, nor 
were there any Jews here of special prom- 
inence. Most of those who had left during 
the period of British occupation returned 
in 1783, or shortly after. The Jews had 
suffered in common with their neighbors, 
and many of them, comparatively wealthy 
before the Revolution, had to begin the 
battle of life all over again. Many of 
them engaged in the "Vendue," or auc- 
tioneer and brolcerage business. They 
seem to have possessed the confidence of 
the community and to have soon re- 
gained their former flourishing condition, 
a circumstance that roused the envy of 
their less successful competitors, for we 
find more than one spiteful reference to 
them in the Gazettes of this period— a sure 
sign of hard times. (See e. g. Gazette of 
the State of South Carolina for September 
8, 1785.) 

Commercially, South Carolina recovered 
rapidly from the effects of the Revolution, 
and in the years succeeding that epoch- 
making event there was a great influx of 
Jewish population. Jews came here from 
everywhere— from England, Germany, 
FYance, Russia, Poland, Curacoa, Jamai- 
ca, St Eustatius, St Domingo, Newport, 
New York and Philadelphia. I hope in 
the near future to publish in full the 
complete list of inscriptions on the tomb- 
stones in our old cemetery, which grive us 
a vast amount of information concerning 
the origin of many of our early settlers. In 



1800 or shortly thereafter Charleston had 
the largest Jewish population in America. 
Communally, too, we notice a great de- 
velopment during the period under con- 
sideration. From 1750 to 1757 the small 
congregation worshipped in a small wood- 
en building in Union street, near Queen 
street. From 1757 to 1764 they were at 318 
King street, near Hasell street, in a 
house "standing back in the yard." In 
1764 they purchased the old burial ground 
at Coming street from Isaac Da Costa. 
(M. C, Volume 3, p 108.) I shall tell the 
story of this old ground, which is still in 
use, elsewhere. In the same year the 
Synagogue was removed to a building in 
Beresford street, near King, where they 
remained till 1781, when they rented a lot 
and brick building in Hasell street from 
Joseph Tobias. This building had been 
occupied as a cotton gin factory, and was 
now altered and arranged as a place of 
WKjrship. It was known as the "Old Syn- 
agogue." This property, with an adjoin- 
ing lot, was afterwards purchased from 
the estate of Joseph Tobias in 1792. (M. C, 
Volume M 6, pp 45 and 48.) This was not 
the site, however, on which the present 
Synagogue stands. The site of the "New 
Synagogue" was bought from Susannah 
Quince in 1791. (H. 6., p 98.) 

In 1791, we are informed, the Congrega- 
tion had increased to 53 families, number- 
ing upwards of 400 persons. In this year 
it became incorporated by an Act of the 
Legislature. (Statutes of South Carolina, 
Volume 8, pp. 161-3.) The petition for in- 
corporation is preserved in the "Occi- 
dent," Volume 1, pp. 384-5. I believe that 
the original is still in Columbia, though I 
was not able to put my hands on it dur- 
ing my recent visit there. It is entitled 
"The petition of the wardens and elders 
of the Jewish Congregation in Charleston, 



called Beth Elohim or House of God." 
This brings me to a very interesting ques- 
tion: Was "Beth Elohim the name of the 
old Congregation, or was it only called 
Beth Elohim for short? As far as I know 
the question has never been raised. 

I was particularly struck by two be- 
quests in the will of Joseph Salvador, 
(which I printed in full abstract, with 
the exception of a single item, which I de- 
signedly omitted.) and which are as fol- 
lows: 

£100 sterling to Joseph Da Costa, m 
trust to pay the same to the Portuguese 
Congregation in the City of Charleston, 
known by the name Beth Elohim Unveh 
Shallom, or the House of the Lord, and 
Mansion of Peace," and to Mr Gershon 
Cohen £20 sterling for the German Jewish 
Congregation in the City of Charleston, 
known by the name of Beth Elohim. or 
House of the Lord," 

To doubt the evidence of such a record 
one must have the most positive of proof, 
yet this record is not without its diffi- 
culties. Unfortunately the old "Return 
Books" are no longer in existence. These 
would have helped us materially in our 
inquiry. 

First, as to the name "Beth Elohim Un- 
veh Shallom," the late Nathaniel Levin, 
who wrote his sketch of this Congregation 
in 1843, and who undoubtedly had seen our 
oldest' book of records, does not refer to 
it except by its present name, Beth Elo- 
him, nor does any ether writer, but that 
is not strange, seeing that practically 
nothing new was written until I published 
my article in the Jewish Comment, and 
which was largely "incorporated" with re- 
markable variations in the article in the 
Jewish Encyclopaedia. In 1784 David Co- 
hen leaves five guineas to K. K. Beth Elo- 
him. (Wills A, p 359.) In 1787 Joseph Myers 



leaves three-fourths of his ©state to K. K. 
Beth Elohim. (Wills B, p 128.) 

It loolced very much as tliough there 
was some mistake in Salvador's wilL In 
historical matters, however, it does not 
pay to jump at conclusions. I waited pa- 
tiently and was rewarded a few days ago 
by stumbling across another will, which 
settled the question. In the same vol- 
ume, (Wills A, p 597.) Moses Molina leaves 
£15 sterling to the "Portuguese Jew Con- 
gregation of Beth Elohim Unve Shalom." 
There might be a mistake in one will, but 
hardly in two. We may, therefore, take 
it as proven, that the original name of the 
Charleston Congregation was not "Beth 
Elohim," but "Beth Elohim Unveh Sha- 
lom," and that it was called "Beth Elo- 
him" for brevity. 

But we are not yet out of difficulty. Do 
we know anything of a German-Jewish 
Congregation in Charleston in 1786, known 
by the name of "Beth Elohim?" Apart 
from this reference in the will of Joseph 
Salvador, I know no place where such a 
German-Jewish Congregation is men- 
tioned. Though there are many bequests 
in the wills to Beth Elohim, there is not 
a single one to a German-Jewish Congre- 
gation. This is remarkable in view of the 
fact that with few exceptions these be- 
quests were made by those who were not 
Portuguese Jews by birth. None of the 
contemporary writers who have referred 
to the Charleston Jewish community, so 
far as I have till now been able to ascer- 
tain, know of more than one Congrega- 
tion and place of worship. Besides this 
there is the fact that in the eighteenth 
century the custom was not usual among 
German Jews of giving names to congre- 
gations or synagogues. And if they gave 
such a name to a congregation in Charles- 
ton, would they have given the same name 
as that which the Portuguese Congrega- 



tion bore? And, finally, there is no rea- 
son for the existence of such a congrega- 
tion here in 1786. All writers have taken 
particular pains to emphasize the fact of 
the prejudice or antagonism that existed 
between the German and Portuguese 
Jews. There is no trace of such prejudice 
or antagonism in the history of the Jews 
of South Carolina prior to 1800. German 
and Portuguese Jews intermarried freely, 
and the only lines of demarkation be- 
tween them were the natural dis- 
tinctions of birth and education. As a 
matter of fact, except at the very be- 
ginning of the communal history of Beth 
Elohim, German Jews have always formed 
a decided majority. When the eight cor- 
ner-stones of the "New Synagogue" were 
laid in 1792, of the eight men who laid 
laid them: Israel Joseph, Philip Hart, 
Lyon Moses, Isaac Moses, Eimanuel Abra- 
hams, Mark Tongues, Hart Moses and 
Abraham Moses Sr, seven, I believe, were 
German Jews, and of the committee of 
arrangements on this occasion— Daniel 
Hart, Gershon Cohen and Moses C. Levy, 
two at least, if not all three, were German 
Jews. I do not care to be dogmatic, espe- 
cially in the face of record evidence, 
but I would certainly like some additional 
proof of the existence of a German-Jewish 
Congregation here in 1786. Till further 
proof is adduced I shall continue to 
doubt. But I must get back to my main 
theme. 

In 1792, the Synagogue being too small, 
the Congregation determined to erect a 
larger place of worship. The members 
contributed liberally and the requisite 
$20,000 was soon raised. I shall not go into 
details here. These details are fully given, 
both in the Occident (Volume 1, pp 386-89,) 
and also in the Year Book for 1883. (Pp 
806-8.) The corner-stones were laid on Fri- 



day, September 14, 1792, with elaborate 
ceremonial, conducted "by the rules and 
regulations of the ancient and honorable 
fraternity of Free Masons." 

The Synagogue was completed in 1794 
and was consecrated on Friday, the 19th 
of September, of that year. At this con- 
secration there were present Governor 
Moultrie, the civil and military officers of 
the State, the municipal authorities, the 
clergy and many citizens. There is a no- 
tice of the ceremonies in the South Caro- 
lina State Gazette of September 20, 1794. 

But I must again go back a little. On 
the establishment of the Federal Govern- 
ment in 1790 the Jewish community of 
Charleston addressed a letter of congrat- 
ulation to Wai^hlngton on his elevation to 
the Presidency. They also joined the Jew- 
ish Congregations of Philadelphia, New 
York and Richmond in a similar letter. I 
will not rei)nnt these letters, which can 
be referred to in the Year Book for 1883, 
Pp 303-5. Washington's reply to the in- 
dividual letter is printed in the Year Book 
for 1884, pp 280-1 and to the joint letter, in 
Wolf's "The American Jew as Citizen and 
Patriot," pp 58-9. The original reply to the 
Charleston Congregation was probably 
bunit In the great fire of 1838. 

The character of the Jewish community 
in 1790 may be judged by the following in- 
cident, which has been preserved to us in 
the Occident. (Volume 1, pp 339-40.) In 
that year a Constitutional Convention was 
held in Columbia and in the election of 
delegates to that Convention the Jews 
took an active part. Grateful for the as- 
sistance which the Jews had rendered 
him, one of the elected delegates sent the 
following communication to the vestry: 

To the Vestry of the Jewish Congrega- 
tion: 
Gentlemen: I feel myself greatly obliged 



by the assistance I received from you and 
the niembers of your Congregation at the 
tate election. If the enclosed can serve 
the poor, or be of any use in any respect 
to the Congregation, I request their ac- 
ceptance of it, to be applied in any such 
manner as they shall think proper. I shall 
be glad' of any future opportunity of ren- 
dering any service to the Congregation. 
Your obliged and humble servant. 

CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT. 
The following reply, re-enclosing the or- 
der for 50 guineas, was sent to Mr Knight: 
Mr C. Knight- 
Sir: Your favor of the 26th ultimo, with 
the enclosed acceptance for fifty guineas, 
has been laid before our body, for which 
token of esteem we are extremely obliged 
to you, but when we consider the motive 
that has induced you to offer it, consist- 
ent with the tenor of your letter, we can- 
not on any consideration think of ac- 
cepting it, as it may be suggested at 
some future period that the members of 
our commiunity were to be bought. We 
have, therefore, thought necessary to re- 
turn it, assuring you, we shall entertain a 
deep sensii'biUty of your good intentions. 
We remain your o'bedient servants, 

Jacob Cohen. 
President of the Congregation K. K. B E. 
During the period we are now discuss- 
ing the Jews of South Carolina do not ap- 
pear to have taken any very prominent 
part In public life. There are only a few 
references to Jews Who occupied public 
offices. Solomon Cohen was postmaster 
for Georgetown in 1794. and Abraham Co- 
hen filled the same position in 1797. 
Eleaaer Elizer was postmaster in Green- 
ville in 1794 and Abraham Seixas was 
keeper of the Work House in Charleston In 
1797, and for several years subsequently. 
Nor do we find many Jews in the profes- 
sions at this period. In 1795 I find men- 



tion of a Dr Sarzedas. I am not certain 
whether he was a physician, but I know 
that he kept a drug store. After 180O, how- 
ever, the Jews of Charleston played a 
conspicuous part in Art, in Science and in 
Literature, to all of which they made emi- 
nent contributions. What they did in these 
spheres I shall relate elsewhere. They at- 
tained considerable prominence, commer- 
cially, however, principally, as I have al- 
ready stated, in the "Vendue" business. 
One of these "Vendue masters " has left 
us an advertisement which gives us a 
good insight into the miscellaneous na- 
ture of a brokerage business of those 
days. It is to be found in the South 
Carolina State Gazette for September 6, 
1784. I reproduce it for its unique char- 
acter. I have not met with anything like 
It In the Gazettes: 

ADVERTISEMENT. 

ABRAHAM SEIXAS, 
All so grracious. 
Once again does offer 
His service pure 
For to secure 
Money in the coffer. 

He has for sale 

Some negroes, male, 

Will suit full well grooms, 

He has likewise 

Some of their wives 

Can make clean, dirty rooms. 

For planting, too, 

He has a few 

To sell, all for the cash. 

Of various pHce, 

To work the rice 

Or bring them to the lash. 

The young ones true, 

If that will do, 

May some be had of him 

To learn your trade 

They may be made. 

Or bring them to your trim. 



13 



The boatmen ^reat, 

Will you elate 

They are so brisk and free; 

What e'er you say, 

They will obey, 

If you buy them of me. 

He also can 

Suit any man 

With land all o'er the State; 

A bargain, sure. 

They may procure 

If they dont stay too late. 

For papers he 

Will sure ag-ree. 

Bond, note or publick debt; 

To sell the same 

If with good name 

And buyer can be met. 

To such of those 

As will dispose 

He begs of them to tell; 

By note or phiz, 

What e'er it is 

That they have got to sell. 

He surely will 

Try all his skill 

To sell, for more or less. 

The articles 

Of beaux and belles. 

That they to him address. 

The following is a fairly complete direc- 
tory of the Jews of Charleston from 178S 
to 1800. I omit all names that we have 
met heretofore. It must be supplemented, 
however, by my list of members of K. K. 
Beth Elohim for 1800, which I have already 
printed. 

Aaron, Solomon, Jr. 

Aarons, Jacob. 

Abendanone, Joseph. 

Abrahams, Abraham. 

Abrahams, Isaac. 

Abrahams, Jacob. 

Abrams, Moise. 

Alexander, Abraham, Jr. 

Azuby, Rev Abraham. 

Barret, Solomon. ' i 



14 



Benedix, Isaac. 

Benzakin, Joseph. 

Bush, David 

Oanter, David. 

Canter, Emanuel. 

Canter, Joshua. 

Cantor, Jacob. 

Cantor, Jacob, Jr. 

Cohen, Jacob A. 

Cohen, Levi. 

Cohen, Mordicai. 

Cohen, Solomon. 

Cohen, Solomon I. 

Da Costa, Aaron. 

De La Motta, Isaac (or Motta.) 

De Leon, Jacob. 

De Lieben, Israel. 

Depass, Ralph. 

Derkheim, Myer. 

E'lizer, Eleazer. 

Gomes, Elias. 

Harby, Isaac. 

Harby, Solomon. 

Harris, Andrew. 

Harris, Hyam. 

Hart, Abraham Levy. 

Hart, Alexander Moses. 

Hart, Bernard. 

Hart, Daniel. 

Hart, Ephraim. 

Hart, Hart Moses. 

Hart, Naphtali. 

Hart, Nathan. 

Hart, Simon. 

Hart, Simon M. 

Hyams, Samuel. 

Hyams, Solomon. 

Isaacks, Moses. 

Isaacs, Abraham. 

Jacobs, Abraham. 

Jacobs, Samuel. 

Jonas, Joshua. 

Joseph, Solomon Moees. 

Lazarus, Aaron. 

Levi, Abraham. 

IS 



Levi, Solomon. 

Levy, Hyam. 

Levy, Hyam E. 

Levy, Lyon. 

Levy, Mordecai. 

licvy, Moses. 

Le\T. Moses C. 

Levy, Reuben. 

Levy, Solomon, Jr. 

Lopez, Aaron. (From Newport.) 

Lopez, David. 

Marks, Humphry. 

Milhado, Benjamin. (From Jamaica.) 

Moise, Abraham. (From Cape Francois.) 

Moise, Cherry. 

Moise, Hyam. (From Port au Prince.) 

Moses, Isaac. 

Moses, Lyon. 

Moses, Philip. (From St Eustatius.) 

Myers, Abraham. 

Myers, Israel. 

Moses, Joseph, Jr. 

Nathan, Abraham. 

Nathan, Solomon. 

Nathans, David. 

Noah, Manuel. 

Pimentel, Aaron. 

Philips, Benjamin. 

Philips, David. (From Jamaica.) 

Polock, Solomon. (From Newport.) 

Saraedas, Moses. 

Seixas, Abraham Mendes. 

Simons, Montague. 

Solomons, Francis. 

Suares, David. (From Curacoa.) 

Tobias, Isaac. 

Woolf or Wolfe, Solomon. 

With this I bring my story to an end. 
I hope that I may be deemed to have made 
a not unimportant contribution to the his- 
tory of this State and to the story of 
the Jews In America. 



ELlxas, 3aTn«tt ftWaVstn, 



THE JEWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA 



RECORD OF FIRST NATURALIZA- 
TION IN THE3 PROVINCE. 



Dr Elzas Makes Some Interesting^ 
Discoveries in tlie State House in 
Columbia— The Text of the Act of 
1G97 "for the Making Aliens Free 
* * * and for Granting- Liberty of 
Conscience to all Protestants." 
[Reprinted from the News and Courier.] 
At the request of The News and Courier 
to take a trip to Columbia and "have a 
look," I paid a flying- trip to the State 
Capital this week in search of more rec- 
ords of the past. 

Early on Monday morning I wended my 
way to the Secretary of State's oflice, 
where the treasures are to be found in 
richest profusion. I found my friend, 
Gantt, at his post and he at once placed 
himself at my disposal. It was but a few 
minutes before I felt that I owned the 
State House. As my time was limited I 
soon had all hands at work. 

An ordinary official would have put me 
down as a very exacting visitor. Not so 
the genial Gantt, however, who is him- 
self quite an enthusiast on historical mat- 
ters. He knows exactly what he has and 
where to find it, and his amiable assist- 
ance to me during my short stay will be 
ever remembered. 

1 must cut my story short this time, but 
will say that I did not find what I was 
looking for— and I now understand why— 
but I found something else of the utmost 
value in determining a number of hither- 
to doubtful points with reference to the 
early story of the Jews of South Carolina. 
I shall next week publish these documents 
in full. 



I found numerous small items of inter- 
est. Two land grants to Moses Lindo, e. g., 
of which there are no records in Charles- 
ton. I fotind mention of a Jewish phy- 
sician in Charleston in 1772, and various 
miscellaneous matters that I have added 
to my note book. 

There was one document that I was 
very pleased to discover, particularly be- 
cause one would least expect to find it 
where it is. It occurs in the volume: 
"Grants, Sales etc," D. 1703-1709. It is the 
first record of the naturalization of a 
Jew in South Carolina and is dated 1697. 
It is made out in the name of Simon Val- 
entine. We have met this Simon Valen- 
tine before. My readers will remember 
him as one of the Jews whom we found 
in Charleston prior to 1700. He was a 
merchant, evidently of means, and figures 
in numerous transactions in the records. 
We found him several times as surety on 
administration bonds. The document is 
exceedingly interesting and I copy it in 
full: 

CAROLINA 

The Rt Honble Joseph Blake Esqr, one 
of the true and absolute Lds, and Pro- 
prietors of the Province of Carolina, Com- 
mandr in Chief vice Admiral and Gover- 
nor of South Carolina: 

To all Judges Justices Magistrates 
ministers and officers Ecclesiastical and 
Civil and to all psons whatsoever to 
whome this shall come to be seen, heard, 
read or known 

GREETEING 

KNOW Yee that Simon Valentine 
Mercht; an alien of ye Jewish Nation 
borne out of the Crown of England hath 
taken his oath of Allegiance to our Sov- 
ereigne Lord William ye Third over Eng- 
land Scotland France and Ireland King 
&c Defender of ye faith and hath done 
every other thing wch by an act of as- 

2 



sembly made att Charles Town in ye ninth 
Yeare of ye Reigne of our Sovereign Lord 
King Willm, &c, Anno Dom: One Thousd 
Six hundred ninety Six and Seven enti- 
tled an Act to make alien free of this pte 
of the Province and for gi-anting Liberty 
of Conscience to all Protestants as one is 
required to do And is fully and effectu- 
ally to all Intents Constructions and 
Purposes Qualified and Capacitated to 
have use and Enjoy all the rights Privi- 
leges Powers and Immunities Given or 
Intended to bee given to any Alien then 
Inhabitant of South Carolina by the 
aforesd Act to Certifie wch I have here- 
unto Sett my hand and Caused the Pub- 
lick Seale to be affixed at Charles Town 
the Twenty Sixth day of May Anno Dom. 
one Thousd six hundred ninety and seaven 
JOSEPH BLAKE. 
There is a very interesting thing to be 
noticed in connection with the Act under 
which Simon Valentine is naturalized. 
The original Act is not now in existence, 
but a copy of it is to be found in Trott's 
"Laws of Carolina," p. 61. I copy the 
parts of interest to our inquiry. 
An Act for the Making Aliens Free of this 
Part of this Province, and for Granting 
Liberty of Conscience to all Protes- 
tants. 

WHEREAS Prosecution for Religion 
hath forced some Aliens, and trade and 
the fertility of this Colony has encouraged 
others to resort to this Colony, all which 
have given good testimony of their hum- 
ble duty and loyalty to his Majesty and 
the Crown of England, and of their fideli- 
ty to the true and absolute Lords and 
Proprietors of this Province, and of their 
obedience to their Laws, and their good 
affections to the inhabitants thereof, and 
by their industry, diligence and trade 
have very much enriched and advanced 
this Colony and Settlement thereof: 



I. BEJ IT RNACTTED • • ♦ That all 
AlieriH, malft and fomale, of whut nation 
HCH^vc-v, which now are InhabltantH of 
South Ciirollna, tholr wIvoh and children, 
Hhall have, uhc and enjoy all the rlghtH, 
prlvllcKCM, tiOwerH and InimunltltiH what- 
woever, which any i>erHon may, can, 
might, could, or of right ought to have, 
u«e und enjoy; and they Hhall he from 
henceforth adjudged, reiiuted and taken 
to be In every coiullllon, reHpect and de- 
gree, as free lo all In leu in, puriJOHCH and 
conHtructlouH, aH If they had been and 
were born of English parentH within thla 
F'rovlnce. ♦ ♦ * 

Vr. AND WHKREAS Beveral of the 
prenent InhabltantH of this country, did 
tninHport IhcinHelveH into thin l^rovlnce. 
In h<»|K^H of enjoying the liberty of their 
conHclem^eH accordltJg to their own per- 
HWaHlon, which the Royal King CharUiH 
the Hecond, of bleHH«!d m<'mory. In hlH 
gradouH (charter was pleaHed to Impower 
the LordH ProprletorH of thin Province to 
grant to the lriiial)llan(H of thin Province 
for to eiicouriiKf <be Hcltlemeiit of the 
same. lilO IT TH I<:m0i'^)m0 lONACTED 
by the authority aforenald, That all ChrlH- 
tlauH which now are, or hereafter may be 
In IhlH Pr-ovlnce (PaplHtn only except<!d) 
Hhall enjoy the full, free and undlHturbed 
lll)erly of I heir con.selenceH, ho an to be In 
the exerclHe of their wornhlp according 
to the profesMed ruk*s of their religion, 
without any let I, moleHtaMon or hindrance 
by Mtiy iMiwer either eeeleHla.Mlleai or civil 
whalHoever. ALVVAYH I'Ro VI DIOI ), That 
thiiy do not dlHturb the publlck peace of 
thin Province, nor dLsturb any other In 
the time of their wcu-Hhlp. 

H<'Md thrill llmeH and ralllled in open 
AHHcmbly. March 10. l«t»fi-7. 

The IntercHtlng fact In connection with 
thlH Act Is, that 63 names are mentlonetl 
therein and auKuigHt them are 3 Jews: 
HImon Valleiillne, niei'ehaiit ; Jacob Men- 
dlH, merchant, and Avlla, merchant. An- 
other name , merchant . 1h obliterated 

In the original. 

(S«5e alHo StatutcH of Houth C'anillna. Vol 
J, pp. 131-133.) 

8outh Carolina may well bi- proud of 
this re«'onl of her early tolerance. It la 
unlipie In th.- blMlory of the Itrltlnh Tolo- 
ide.i. ISai-nett A. lOliian. 



DOCUMENTS 

Relative to a proposed settlement of 

Jews in South Carolina 

in 1748. 



«.BY.„ 
Dr. BARNETT A. ELZAS, 

Rabbi of K. K. Beth Elohim. 



J« ^ ^ ;>« 



[Reprinted frotn the Charleston News and Courier, Feb. 1903.] 



DOCUMENTS 

Relative to a proposed settlement of 

Jews in South Carolina 

in i74&. 

Before resuming my narrative of the 
story of the Jews of Charleston, there are 
certain preliminary considerations to be 
made. 

The communal history of the Jews of 
Charleston dates from 1750, though, as we 
have seen, Jews lived here for over fifty 
years before this. They were certainly 
here in sufficient numbers to have met 
for regular worship twenty years before, 
though they were neither numerous nor 
wealthy enough to organize a congrega- 
tion with a special place of worship and 
with a quota of paid officials. 

How did the Jews come here? Did they 
come to Charleston as a colony, as did the 
Jews of Savannah? When did they come? 
Here facts and local traditions are in 
conflict. 

Local tradition tells that some time be- 
tween 1732 and 17S9, Moses Cohen the first 
Haham or Chief Rabbi, came to Charles- 
ton bringing with him from London a set- 
tlement of Jews, who afterwards formed 
the first congregation K. K. Beth Elohlm. 
This tradition can no longer be accepted. 
The State Paper Ofllce in London has 
preserved an immense number of docu- 
ments relating to South Carolina. Thirty- 
six iarge volumes of these MSS documents 
have been copied and are available in 
Columbia. I was much gratified recently 
In my research to find amongst these pa- 
pers the entire data relative to a pro- 
posed settlement of Jews in South Caro- 
lina in 1748. These papers settle the ques- 
tion absolutely. Before giving them in de- 
tail, however, I must again quote Picciot- 
ti's "Sketches of Anglo-Jewish History"— 



an indispensable work for the historian of 
the Jews of South Carolina. This is what 
Picciotto has to say on the subject: 

"The questions of labor, of the poor, and 
of emigration," he writes, (pp 152-3,) "ap- 
pear to have vexed the minds of the chiefs 
of the Sephardi community during last 
century, just as they bewilder at present 
other important bodies. Notwithstand- 
ing the presence of many persons in af- 
fluent circumstances among the Jews, the 
poor unfortunately have always been in 
greater numbers than the totality of the 
Hebrew population warranted. A hun- 
dred years ago the Jews possessed no mid- 
dle class. There were perhaps 150 to 200 
families that might be considered rich, 
about two-thirds of which belonged to the 
Spanish and Portuguese congregation. 
Then we should find at most as many 
families engaged in small retail trade, and 
finally we should see a floating mass, at 
least five times as numerous as the other 
two classes together, consisting of huck- 
sters, hawkers, journeymen and others, 
either verging on pauperism or steeped 
hopelessly in its abyss. 

To endeavor to diminish the strain of 
pauperism by emigration the Sephardi 
Congregation in 1734 appointed a commit- 
tee to apply for grants of land in Georgia, 
which the British Government was freely 
distributing to intending emigrants under 
certain conditions. This committee re- 
mained standing for some years, but we 
do not gather that it led to any practical 
results. Three years afterwards the com- 
mittee reported that some lands in Caro- 
lina had been offered to them, and that 
they were negotiating on the subject. In 
1745 this committee was still in existence, 
and obtained an extension of powers and 
an allowance to cover expenditure. After 
this time we hear no more of it, and it is 
fair to assume that had it achieved any- 



thing worth recording it would have beea 
recorded." 

Picciotto is correct in his surmise. 
There had been a proposition to settle 
Jews in South Carolina, but the negotia- 
tions came to nothing. Here are the doc- 
uments in full and they are now published 
for the first time: 



From the B. P. R. O. JOURNALS B. T. 
Vol. 56. 

Public Records of South Caroiina, Vol. 
23, 1748-1749. 

6TH APRIL 1748. 

Read the following order of the Lords of 
the Commee. of Council viat. 

Order of the Lords of the Committee of 
Council for Plantation Affairs, dated the 
26th March 1748 referring to this Board the 
humble petition of John Hamilton, Esqr, 
praying for a Grant of 200,000 Acres of 
land in the Province of South Carolina 
and directing them to report their opinion 
thereupon. 

19TH, APRIL 1748. 

' The Board pursuant to the Minutes of 
the 6th instant, took into their Consider- 
ation three orders of the Lords of the 
Committee of Council for Plantation Af- 
fairs, referring them to the humble peti- 
tion of John Hamilton Esqr. for a Grant 
of 200,000 Acres of Land in South Carolina. 



After some time spent therein, the Sec- 
retary was directed to write to Mr Ham- 
ilton to attend the Board on Wednesday 
the 27 instant, upon the subject of the said 
petition 



27TH. APRIL* 1748. 

Mr Hamilton attending as desired, their 
Lordships had some discourse with him 
concerning his petition for a Grant of 
200,000 Acres of Land in South Carolina, 
referred to them by an order of the Lords 
of the Committee of Council, mentioned 
in the minutes of the fith Instant, and he 
acquainted their Lordships, that he had 
entered into Engagements with Mr Solo- 
mon da Costa and other eminent Jews re- 
siding here, as also with other Persons 
for the Transportation of People and pro- 
viding them Necessaries to carry on his 
intended Settlement, and that a consider- 
able sum of Money had been advanced 
for that purpose; Whereupon their Lord- 
ships desired that he would bring such 
Persons as he had engaged with upon this 
Occasion, that the Board might receive all 
necessarj' Satisfaction in this Affair and 
likewise that he would lay before them 
such conditions as he had entered into 
with them, and Friday the 29th, was ap- 
pointed for his further attendance. 

29TH APRIL 1748. (MEMORANDUM.) 
Mr Hamilton attended this day as de- 
sired by the Minutes of the 27th Instant 
upon the subject of his Petition for a 
Grant of 200,000 Acres of Land in South 
Carolina but there not being a sufficient 
Number of Commissioners present to con- 
stitute a Board the Consideration of this 
Affair was postponed to another Oppor- 
tunity. 

5TH JULY, 1748. 

Read a letter from Mr Hamilton to Mr 
Pownall dated the 30th of June 1748 inclos- 
ing 

A further Proposal upon his Petition 
praying for a Grant of 200,000 Acres of 
Land in South Carolina. 



Resolved to take Mr Hamilton's said Pe- 
tition into Consideration tomorrow Morn- 
ing and the Secretary was directed to 
write to Mr Hamilton to desire his At- 
tendance tomorrow morning at Eleven 
o'clock. 

6TH JULY 1748. 

Mr Hamilton attending as desired, their 
Lordships had some Conversation with 
him upon the subject of his Petition for 
200,000 Acres of Land, in the Province of 
South Carolina, whereupon he acquainted 
their Lordships, that he desired to take 
up no more land at first than should be 
sufficient to settle the People he should 
carry over with him at the proportion of 
100 Acres for every white person Jews or 
Christians, and so from time to time to 
take up the like Quantity for every per- 
son he should bring into the Province, 
the Land to be granted to him upon a Cer- 
tificate from the Custom House Officer in 
the Province of the Number of Persons 
imported— the Land to be taken up rough 
and smooth as it runs and as near to- 
gether as possible, and in order to show 
a further Probability of his making a Set- 
tlement he acquainted their Lordships 
that a Gentleman whose name was Hempe 
was ready to engage to send him as many 
German Protestants as he should have 
Land to settle upon from time to time as 
he should have occasion for them; Where- 
upon he was directed to attend again on 
Friday and to bring that Gentleman with 
him and likewise to reduce his Proposall 
into writing and lay the same before the 
Board. 

8TH JULY 1748. 

Mr Hamilton attending as desired by the 
Minutes of the 6th instant laid before the 
Board the following further Proposals up- 
on his Petition for a Grant of 200,000 Acres 
of Land in the Province of South Carolina 
Vizt. 



That he may be irititled by His Majes- 
ty's Order to take up from time to time 
no more than 100 Acres of Land for each 
White Person Jews as well as Christians 
he shall bring into, and that shall after- 
wards be brought to settle in the said 
Province under his Direction; And that he 
may be intitled to take up none by virtue 
of such order but upon a certificate of an 
Officer of the Customs that the People 
are arrived in the Province, upon whose 
Account he is to take it up. 

That the Lands shall be run out from 
time to time, where he can have it good 
and bad as it runs as near together as 
possible, all the Lands to be taken up to 
be free of Quit Rent for the first ten 
Years from the Date of each Grant under 
the Seal of the Province and afterwards 
to pay 4s. Proclamation Money per ann. 
for every hundred Acres. 

At the same time Mr Hamilton ac- 
quainted their Lordships that Dr Hempe 
whom he was to have brought with him, 
was prevented by his other Affairs and 
would attend their Lordships on Tues- 
day next. 

26TH JULY 1748. 
Their Lordships further took into Con- 
sideration Mr Hamilton's Proposals men- 
tioned in the Minutes of the 8th Instant, 
and ordered the said Proposals to be sent 
to Mr Solomon da Costa, for his opinion 
thereupon, and whether he and the rest 
of the Jews concerned with Mr Hamilton 
are willing to engage in the said under- 
taking upon these Proposals, agreeable to 
what they had before agreed upon, men- 
tioned in the Minutes of the 22nd, of De- 
cember. 

8TH DECEMBER 1748. 
Read a letter from Mr Solomon Da Costa 
to the Secretary dated the 2nd day of Sept 
6 



1748 relating to Mr Hamilton's last Pro- 
posal on his Petition for a Grant of 200,000 
Acres of Land in South Carolina signify- 
ing that If the Board think proper to 
comply therewith, they will then consid- 
er in what manner to carry the same into 
Execution. 

Ordered that the Secretary to write to 
Mr Solomon Da Costa to know positively 
Whether he and his Associates will ad- 
here to their former Proposition of ad- 
vancing £6000 In case the Board shall 
think proper to recommend the making 
a Grant to Mr Hamilton according to his 
said Proposal. 

13TH, DECEMBER 17i8. 

Read a letter from Mr Solomon Da Costa 
dated the 12th day of Dec. 1748, in answer 
to one from Mr Hill mentioned in the Min- 
utes of the 8th, Inst, desiring him to ac- 
quaint the Board, that the Intention of 
himself and his Associates was to make 
the first Outset with £2000 and they should 
increase that Sum, if they found it answer 
their Expectations. 

Ordered that the Draught of a Report to 
the Lords of the Committee of Council, 
be prepared pursuant to their Lordships 
order referring Mr. Hamilton's Petition 
for 200,000 Acres of Land in South Caro- 
lina mentioned in the Minutes of the 6th 
of April last which their Lordships are of 
Opinion, will not be fore His Majesty's 
Service to comply with, Mr. Hamilton not 
having laid before the Board anything 
that can induce them to think that he can 
carry his Proposals into Effect as a 
Foundation for making such Grant. 

14TH DECEMBER 1748 
The Draught of a report to the Lords 
Committee of Council upon Mr. Hamil- 
ton's Petition for 200,000 Acres of Land In 
the Province of South Carolina Ordered to 



be prepared by the preceding Day's Min- 
utes was laid before the Board agreed t« 
transcribed and signed. 



B. P. R. O. South Carolina B. T. Vol 15 1 9 
26th March 1748 

At the Council Chamber Whitehall 
the 26th of March 1748 

By the Right Honorable the Lords of 
the Committee of Council for Plantation 
Affairs. 

His Majesty having been pleased by His 
Order in Council of the 22nd of this In- 
stant to referr unto this Committee the 
humble Petition of John Hamilton Esqr, 
Setting forth That there are great Tracts 
of Land in the Province of South Carolina 
lying ungranted and uncultivated, and 
that having discovered an Improvement in 
Manufacturing Plantation Pitch and Tar, 
and also a Species of Essential Oyl which 
will be useful in all His Majesty's Domin- 
ions. 

He has engaged with some Merchants of 
Fortune and Integrity who have agreed to 
advance a large Sum of Money to make 
an extensive Settlement and to advance 
all necessary Sums from time to time for 
transporting Inhabitants to that Prov- 
ince, and therefore humbly praying, that 
His Majesty will be graciously pleased to 
grant him 200,000 Acres of Land in South 
Carolina to be taken up together in a con- 
venient Place for Manufacturing and 
Shipping off those Commoditys for Eng- 
land, if so much can be had together in 
such convenient Place, if not, that the 
Petitioner may take it up in Parcels not 
less than 12,000 Acres in a Parcel, and 
not more than Ten Miles Distant from 
each other, if such Parcels can be so tak- 
en up, without the lands of others inter- 
fering, and that the Petitioner may be at 



Liberty to take up th^same from time to 
time as he shall bring People to settle 
thereon, and to have the whole compre- 
hended in one or more Grant or Grants 
as it shall appear expedient. And that the 
Quit Rent may be remitted for the first 
Ten Years from the date of each Grant, 
and afterwards to pay the usual Quit 
Rent of Four Shillings Proclamation 
Money per Annum for each hundred 
Acres— The Lords of the Committee this 
day took the said Petition into their Con- 
sideration and are hereby pleased to referr 
the same (a Copy whereof is hereunto an- 
nexed) to the Lords Commissioners for 
Trade and Plantations to Consider there- 
of, and Report their Opinion thereupon to 
this Committee. w. SHARPE. 



To the Kings m.ost Excellent Majesty In 

Council 
The humble Petition of John Hamilton 

Esqr. 
Sheweth 

That Your Majesty having most exten- 
sive Tracts of Land in Your Province of 
South Carolina, lying ungranted and un- 
cultivated which were they settled with 
industrious People would at the same time 
increase the Revenue of the Crown the 
Trade and Navigation of England, and the 
Strength of that and the Adjacent Pro- 
vinces. 

That your Petr. having discovered an ef- 
fectual Improvement in the Manufactur- 
ing the Plantation Pitch and Tar, which 
will excell all other, and prove very ad- 
vantaglous to your Majesty's Navy, and 
all British Shipping, and may soon save 
this Nation great Annual Sums of 
Money which now goes to Sweden &c. for 
those Commoditys, as also a species of 
Essential Oyl which will be as usefull in 
all your Majesty's Dominions. 



That In order to make an extensive Set- 
tlement and extend the Manufacture of 
those useful Commoditys In the said Prov- 
ince which Is peculiarly adapted thereto, 
as also to the raising of other Produce of 
principal use in several British Manu- 
factures, Your Petitioner has engaged 
with him some Merchants of Fortune and 
Integrity, who have agreed to advance a 
large Sum of Money for that purpose, and 
to advance hereafter all necessary Sums 
from time to time for transporting In- 
habitants they are to send carry on the 
Trade &c. Wherefore as very extensive 
tracts of Land wlli be requisite to Parcel 
out to such People as the benefit of car- 
rying on these Advantageous Manufac- 
tures, and raising such Produce, will in- 
duce to remove to the said Province un- 
der the Direction of Your Petitioner. 

Your Petitioner therefore most humbly 
Prays Your Majesty will be graciously 
pleased to grant to Your Petitioner 200,000 
Acres of Land in the said Province to be 
taken up together in a convenient Place 
for Manufacturing and Shipping off these 
Commoditys for England, if so much can 
be had together in such convenient Place 
if not, that Your Petitioner may take it 
up In Parcels not less than 12,000 Acres, 
in a Parcel, and them not more than Ten 
MUes distant from each other, if such 
Parcels can be so taken up without the 
Lands claimed by others interfering. And 
that Your Petitioner may be at liberty to 
take up the same from time to time as he 
shall bring People into the Province to 
Settle thereon, And to have the whole 
Comprehended in one or more Grant or 
Grants as It shall appear most expedient. 
And that the Quit Rent may bo remitted 
for the first Ten Years from the date of 
each Grant made under the Seal of the 
Province, and afterwards to pay the usual 
Quit Rent of Four Shillings Proclamation 

10 



Money p€r Annum for each hundred 
Acres. 

And Your Petitioner wiil ever Pray. 

Received April ye 3d 

Read Do ye 6th 1748 

B. P. R. O. South Carolina B. T. Vol 15 1 11 
(30th June 1748.) 
Sir 

I am extremely sory yt ye unfortunate 
Situation. 

I have brought myself into, thro' ye 
pure honesty of my intentions, should lay 
me under a necessity of giving- repeated 
trouble where I would rather oblige. 

I herewith send you a Proposal, which 
I hope will appear to the Lords a testi- 
mpny that it is not my View, as I would 
not have a power to take great Tracts of 
the Kings Lands whether I can settle it 
or not; for as I perceive yt to be ye great 
Complaint, so I would avoid it, knowing 
I can make my doing so Subservient to 
the Service of the Crown, under their 
LfOrdships Instructions. 

When the Board is at leasure to Consid- 
er my Petition, I hope you'll be pleased to 
Communicate this Proposall to their 
Lordships, and believe at ye same time 
yt 'tis ye view of ye Danger my Situation 
threatens me with which has made me 

more anxiously pre perhaps is prudent; 

but as I did intimate to the Lords what 

extraordinary Case is I hope their 

goodness will excuse ye of my Zeal to 

be in a condition to Serve my Country in 

a w wants It, and save my Fortune 

now at Stake for yt Enterprize I am 

Sir 
Tour most humble Servt. 
I. HAMILTON. 

Stafford Buildings 

ye 30 th of June 1748 

P. S. I would have waited on you with 
the indos'd proposal was I not much in- 
disposed. 

To Pownell Esq. 

II 



INCLOSURE. 

Mr Hamilton's Proposalls on his Petition 
praying for 200,000 Acres of Land In South 
Carolina. 

He proposed to be at liberty to take up 
no more than 30,000 Acres at first Survey, 
so much being about the quantity which 
will be sufficient to parcel out to the Peo- 
ple he takes over to the Province with 
him. And that he shall not have power 
to take up any more after that, till the 
People are ariv'd in the Province who he 
is to settle upon It, but that upon a Cer- 
tificate of an Officer of the Customs to 
the Governor, that such people are 
ariv'd the Petitioner may then be intitled 
to take up 200 Acres for each white Per- 
son that shall come to him, so much be- 
ing the Proportions generally allowed by 
their Lordships in former Grants. 

The Petitioner being bound this way he 
humbly presumes effectually prevents him 
from locking up the Land as has been 
usual for 10 Years whether it is settled 
or not, in as much as he cannot take up 
any, after the first 30,000 Acres, but as he 
brings People into the Province to Settle 
upon it; which is asking but just what he 
can settle, and no more. 

That he will take up the first 30,000 Acres 
altogether in such Convenient place as he 
can have it, and all other parcels he may 
afterwards take up shall adjoyn to the 
first, or be as near it as possible, and be 
obliged to always take up the Land good 
and bad, rough and smooth as it runs; 
and the Governor to make Grants of each 
parcel as it shall be taken up All the Land 
to be taken up to be free of Quit rent for 
the first ten years, from the date of each 
Grant under the Seal of the Province, and 
afterwards to pay 4s Proclamation money 
per Ann for each 100 Acres. 

Reed July 1st 

1748 
Read Do 5th 



B. P. R. O. South Carolina B. T. Vol 15 I 11 

1st July 1748. 

Mr Hamilton's Proposall upon his Pe- 
tition praying for Land in South Carolina. 

That he may be intitled by His Majes- 
ty's Order of Council, to take up from 
time to time 100 Acres of Land for each 
White Person, Jews as well as Christians 
he shall brinjc into, and that shall after- 
wards be brought, to settle In the said 
Province under his direction: And that he 
may be intitled to take up none by vir- 
tue of such Order but upon a certificate 
of an Officer of the Customs, that ye 
People are arived in the Province upon 
whose Account he is to take it up. 

That he will run the same out from time 
to time, where he can have it, and good 
and bad as it runs, and as near together 
as possible. J. HAMILTON. 

Reced July 7th 

1748 

Read Do 8th 

B. P. R. O. South Carolina B. T. Vol 15 I S6 

(2d September 1748.) 
Sir 

The reason why I did not sooner answer 
their Lordships question with relation to 
Mr Hamilton's last Proposal (which was 
delivered to me sometimes since by Mr 
Powneil, and which I now return to you 
inclosed) is because Mr Francis Salvador 
& Mr Benjamin Mendes Da Costa, who 
are to be concerned with me in that Af- 
fair, live all the Summer in the Country, 
and come to Town but once or twice a 
Week about their Affairs, and therefore 
have not been able to have a Meeting 
with them upon that Subject till this 
week. When having taken the same into 
Consideration, we think that if their Lord- 
ships shall be pleased to grant Mr Hamil- 



ton's request in any shape, It will at all 
events be fore ye Advantage of the Pub- 
lick; And when they shall so have done, 
we will consider in what manner to carry 
the same Into Execution. 

I remain with great respect their Lord- 
ships &c. Sir. 
Devonshire Square 
Bishopgate Street London 
Friday Morning 2d Sept, 1784 

Yr most humble Servt. 
Thos. Hill Esqr. Solomon Da Costa. 

Reed Sept ye 3d 

1748 

Read Dec 13. 

B. P. R. O. South Carolina B. T. Vol 15 I 37 
Devonshire Square London Monday 
Morning 12th Dec 1748. 
Sir 

Tour favour of the 9th Instant, I re- 
received last Saturday when I could not 
return immediate answer as you require 
In their Lordships names, by reasons of 
the day; and also because it was neces- 
sary to shew it to my Associates, and 
consult with them the answer. Which 
having done, I have now the Honour to 
acquaint their Lordships (thro your 
means) that our intention was to make 
the first Outsett for Two Thousand 
Pounds, laid out in things necessary for 
the establishment of our undertaking, in 
such manner as Mr Hamilton should have 
advised, and should not have scrupled to 
encrease it to three times that sum or 
even more, if we found it answered our 
expectations, as well with regard to the 
Publick good, as to our Advantage. I 
have endeavoured so to explain my self 
as not to be thought ambiguous, and con- 
clude assuring you that I am Sincerely 
Sr 
Your most humble Servt. 
SOLOMON DA COSTA. 
14 



Thos Hill, Esqr 

Reed Decbr ye 13th 

1748 

Read Ditto. 

There are no further references to the 
subject. The negotiations had evidently 
come to an end. 

The above documents make clear these 
facts: That there was an accession to the 
Jewish community in Charleston in 1750, 
that the Jews who came here from Lon- 
don, came not as a colony, but as individ- 
uals and that those who came did not be- 
long to the pauper class, who were as- 
sisted to emigrate here in order to re- 
lieve the strain and stress of relief work 
at home. This is in perfect accord with 
the information which we gather from the 
other source*. 



15 



THE DAGGETT PRINTING CO.. 
Chak^lbston, S. C. 



MOSES LINDO. 

^^^ 9^r^ V^ <^^ 

A Sketch of the Most Promment Jew in 
Charleston in Provincial Days. 

• • • BY • « • 

Dn BARNETT A* ELZAS, 

Rabbi of K* K. Beth Elohim. 



^2^ %5^ c^^ <^^ 



[Reprinted from the Charleston News and Courier, Jan. 1903.] 



MOSES UNDO, 

%3^ t^^ ^^ 

A Sketch of the Most Prominent Jew in 
Charleston in Provincial Days, 

The subject of this sketch is a most in- 
teresting figure in the early days of South 
Carolina's history. Who Moses Lindo 
was, I do not know. I only know what is 
related of him in that wonderfully rich 
and priceless collection of Gazettes that 
is to be found in our own Charleston 
Library alone, I have as yet made no at- 
tempt to trace him in London. I shall do 
so later and I am satisfied that I shall 
have no difficulty in finding out something 
more about him. I am personally ac- 
quainted with several members of the 
Lindo family in London, which has been 
notably connected with the Spanish and 
Portuguese community of that city for 
several generations. Picciotto in his 
charming "Sketches of Anglo-Jewish His- 
tory," (p. 124,) makes mention of a Moses 
Lindo, Jr, as a prominent member of the 
"Deputies of British Jews," a body ap- 
pointed "To watch all Acts of Parliament, 
Acts of Government, laws, libels, ad- 
dresses, or whatever else may affect the 
body of Jews," and which is to-day the 
most influential organization of Jews in 
the world. He may be a son of our Moses 
Lindo, The latter was himself an impor- 
tant personage in London prior to his 
coming to South Carolina. He himself 
tells us (January 19, 1767:) "I have been 
allowed to be one of the best judges of 
Cochineal and Indico on the ROYAL EX- 
CHANGE, for upwards of 25 years past, 
and have not been thought unworthy 
(when Sir Stephen Theodore Jansen rep- 
resented the city of London in Parlia- 
ment) to be called with Mr Samuel Torin 
and Mr Daniel Valentine, to give my sen- 
timents of Carolina Indico to the hon. 
House of Commons of Great Britain." 
Suffice it to say, then, that he was an 
expert indigo sorter, in London, who, no- 
ticing that a particularly fine grade of in- 
digo was received from South Carolina, 
changed his headquarters in 1756 from 
London to Charles-Town. The rest of hi.s 
story cannot be better told than by the 
Gazettes themselves. 



We first meet with Moses Lindo in the 
Gazettes, some three months before he 
arrives in Charles-Town. The following 
is the first notice of him and appears in 
the supplement to the "South Carolina 
Gazette" of Thursday, August 19, 1756, 

"A Correspondent in London, has sent 
us the following Advertisement, and with 
it proper Directions for making L.ime 
Water to subside Indico. 

"To the Printer of the Public Adver- 
tiser: 

"SIR: 

"I HAVE examined the major Part of 
the Carolina Indico entered this year, and 
have the Pleasure to find a considerable 
Quantity equal to the BEST French; and 
tho* there is some inferior to the Sight by 
3s. 6d. per Pound, yet on using it as under, 
I am convinced the Inferiority is not more 
that Is. 6d. a Pound. Therefore, Sir, your 
publishing this, will be a singular Service 
to the consumer, and consequently oblige. 

"Your constant Reader, 

"Moses Lindo, Wormwood-street. 

"The Carolina of the above Sortment 
must be ground finer than the French, 
and cast into Blood-warm Water three 
Days before Use, drawing off the Water 
every 24 hours, and casting fresh, and 
adding a 5th Part more Madder than 
usual. The Cause of its not working free 
Is, that some of the Makers at Carolina 
are unacquainted when their Lime-Water 
is proper to subside the Indico." 

"THE DIRECTIONS. 

"The proper Lime-Water for Indico 
must be the Third Water: The First cast 
away after four Hours, the Second after 
eight; but the Third must stand ten, 
which will be more Ascid than alkaline. 
The Crust that rises on the Water must 
be carefully taken off, otherwise it will 
cause the Mould, which would appear in 
the Indico white, to be the colour of rusty 
Iron. 

"It would be greatly to the advantage of 
the Maker, if the Pieces were an Inch and 
a half square." 

FROM LONDON TO CHARLES TOWN. 
The next notice of Moses Lindo is the 
announcement of his arrival In Charles- 
Town. 



"MOSES LINDO gives this public No- 
tice, that he is arrived from London, with 
an Intent to purchase Indico of the 
Growth and Manufacture of this Province, 
and to remit the same to his Constituents 
in London, classed, sorted and packed in a 
Manner proper for the foreign market.— If 
any are desirous to know upon what 
Credit, and to what Extent he purposes 
to carry on his Branch of Business, he 
begs leave to refer them for Particulars 
to Mr John Rattray, who is possessed of 
his Papers, and to whom he is recom- 
mended." 

(The South Carolina Gazette, Novem- 
ber 11, 1756.) 

The magnitude of Lindo's business 
transactions may be gathered from the 
following: 

"Whereas I have employ'd the Sum of 
One Hundred and Twenty Thousand 
Pounds Currency in the Produce of this 
Country, besides 30,000 Pounds in Prize- 
Goods and other Articles, all which are 
paid for, as appears by my Receipt-Book, 
except about 3,800 Pounds Currency, 2,000 
of which does not become due 'till the 22d 
Instant. The Remaining 1,800 Pounds I 
have my objections for not paying. 

"NOW THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, to 
every Gentleman, Planter and Trader in 
this Province, who has any Demands on 
me, that they come and receive their 
Money from the 15th to the 25th Instant. 
If any One should take the Liberty of 
contradicting the above Advertisement, oi 
give out any other malicious Insinuation, 
in order to prejudice me in the Good Opin- 
ion of those I have dealt with, I shall 
esteem it one of the greatest Favours 
done to me, to let me know the same by a 
Line, and their Names shall be concealed. 
And if such Information comes from a 
person of middling Circumstances, on due 
Proof thereof, I do hereby promise to re- 
ward him with the Sum of Five Hundred 
Pounds Currency. 

"I return my Thanks to those Gentle- 
men who assisted me in taking my Bills 
for 12,000 Pounds Sterling; and to the 
Planters of Winyah and those of the 
Southward, for giving me the Preference 
of their Indico. And do hereby assure 
them, that (if it please God I live 'till the 
next Season) I will not let their Fine In- 
dico Fall under 20 Shillings per Pound, 
having all the Reason to believe I shall 
have 200,000 Pounds Currency to lay out 



the ensuing Year in that Article; where- 
fore I hope they will not be discouraged. 
""MOSES LINDO 

Whoever is desirous of being informed 
what I paid for what I bought, may 
know of William Branford, John Hutchin- 
son, John Butler, William Gibbs, Jonas 
Butterfield, Andrew Gowan, &c, &c. 

"N. B. — If any Person is willing to part 
with a plantation of 500 Acres, with 60 or 
70 Negroes, I am ready to purchase it for 
ready money. Please to leave a Line di- 
rected to me at Mrs Shepard's in Tradd- 
street, and Secrecy shali be observed if 
not agreed on." 

(Supplement to the South Carolina Ga- 
zette, March 10, 1757.) 

A SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTER. 

Moses Lindo was not only an expert in- 
digo sorter, but was also a scientific ex- 
perimenter with dyes. He sought to en- 
courage investigation, likewise, on the 
part of others by offering prizes for dis- 
coveries if they proved to be of value. 
Witness the following: 

"Mr Timothy: 

"I HAVE made Trial of Two CRIM- 
SON DYES lately discovered in this Prov- 
ince; and in Justice to Mr John Story 
of Port Royal, Carpenter, I am obliged to 
declare, that I find his Crimson called 
JOHN'S-BLOOD, answers all the Pur- 
poses of Cochineal; for it dyes a fine Crim- 
son on Cotton, so as to stand washing 
with Soap- Lees; and it is my firm Opin- 
ion will likewise dye Scarlet. I have sent 
Samples of it Home, via Bristol, that, 
when approved of in London, by Messrs 
George Farmer and George Honour, two 
eminent Dyers there. The said Mr Story 
may be entitled to Part of the Reward of- 
fered by the Society for encouraging Arts, 
to such as can fix a Scarlet or Turkey 
Red on Cotton. 

"And as there are many Roots and 
Weeds to be found in this Province and 
Georgia, that Will dye REDS, I shall be 
obliged to all who will meet with such in 
their Way, to send me a Pound dried in 
the Shade; that I may make Trials of 
them. And if the Discoverers be persons 
in middling Circumstances, and what they 
produce to me be proven a DYE, I will re- 
ward them with Fifty Pounds Currency, 
and use my best Endeavors to obtain for 
them further Gratuities from the Dyers' 
Company in London. 



"I am sensible, Mr Timothy, you are ■*. 
Well-wisher to the Interest of this Prov 
ince and the Mother-Country; therefore, 
hope you will not omit publishing in your 
Gazettes any Hints tending to the Ad- 
vantage of both whenever such are offered 
you; and thereby, amongst others oblige 

"Your Constant Reader, 

"MOSES LINDO. 

"Charles-Town, July 16, 1759." 

(South Carolina Gazette, Saturday, July 
28, 1759.) 

Moses Lindo's contract with the Lon- 
don house which he represented having 
expired, and their agent having failed to 
pay for the indigo consigned to them, as 
also his annual allowance, he next an- 
nounces that during his stay here he 
would mark Carolina Indico, First, Sec- 
ond and Third Sort, as he had done for 
them on a reasonable commission. He 
does not expect to be paid unless the in- 
dico so sorted "adds credit to this prov- 
ince and profit to those who chuse to ship 
that article," so as to prevent impositions 
by the purchasers of Carolina Indico in 
England. 

(South Carolina Gazette, November 14, 
1761.) 

"AS GOOD AS THE FRENCH." 

In the next notice he announces that in 
consequence of his advertisement of the 
12th of November last, several gentlemen 
have left their indico to his care. He 
assures the public that out of the twenty 
thousand weight on board of the vessels 
under convoy, there are 18,000 as good as 
the French. Should it appear at home to 
the purchasers of it, that he has not de- 
monstrated it as such, he says that it will 
be doing the gentlemen here a piece of 
service if they will signify his fault in 
Lloyd's Evening Post, under the attesta- 
tion of Messrs Mark Hudson Peter 
Fearon, Aaron Lara and William Richard- 
son, eminent brokers in this and other 
dyes. "To whose judgment only I submit, 
as well as to their equity in doing me 
justice, whether they ever saw so large 
a parcel of Carolina indico so even sorted 
as not to differ in value two pence ster- 
ling per pound from the first lot to the 
last." 

Lindo had met with such marked suc- 
cess in his business, that he roused the 
jealousy of his competitors, who seem to 
have spread false reports concerning him. 



He reta:iates in this same advertisement. 

"As some purchasers of Indlco may 
imagine that by this advertisement I want 
to get more indico to sort, 1 do hereby 
declare that I will only do it for those 
that 1 am engaged with, they being well 
known to capital people, and capable of 
purchasing as much indico of the planters 
as I can well attend to." He indignantly 
denies that he owes more than 3,000 guin- 
eas in this pi'ovince than is due to him at 
home, 'as some people have through their 
correspondence insinuated to my friends 
and relatives.' 

The advertisement ends with a humor- 
ous touch of scorn: 

"Sealed with my seal, well known in most 
markets in Europe for these 25 years, as 
always prime indico, which to this time 
of life I have not yet forfeited; and it is 
to me really a diversion to see some peo- 
ple in this town pretend to be judges of 
the quality of indico, to one that has had 
the experience of upwards of thirty years 
in it; and I wish they may not, by which 
they have shipped on board the fleet, ex- 
perience the presumption." 

(South Carolina Gazette, February 27, 
1762.) 

The importance of the indigo industry 
to the province of South Carolina may be 
appreciated from the following historical 
facts: Indigo began to be cultivated in 
South Carolina in 1744 and was exported to 
England as early as 1747, where it attract- 
ed considerable attention. Great Britain 
was consuming annually 600,000 pounds 
weight of French indigo, paying for it 
£150,000 pounds sterling, and the statistics 
showed an annual increase of consump- 
tion. In 1748 Parliament passed an Act, 
allowing a bounty of six pence per pound 
on indigo from the British Colonies. This 
stimulated the South Carolina production 
and in 1754 the export of indigo from 
Charles Town amounted to 216,924 pounds, 
and shortly before the Revolution, had 
risen to 1,176,660 pounds. 
(Year Book for 1883, pp. 402-3.) 

The man who had done more to en- 
courage this inxportant industry (the 
greatest source of revenue in those days 
to South Carolina) than anyone in the 
province was Moses Lindo. This is clear- 
ly evident from the following: 

"The services heretofore rendered to 
this province by Mr Moses Lindo, in as- 



certaining the quality and establishing the 
reputation of our indico-manufacture, 
both at home and at the foreign markets, 
in April last induced many gentlemen of 
rank and fortune, merchants, planters 
and others, to give him the following tes- 
timonial of their opinion of his abilities, 
in writing, and of the necessity of having 
a public inspector, subscribed with their 
names, viz: 

"In order to brioig our indico-produce 
into reputation at home as well as at for- 
eign markets, it becomes necessary to 
have a proper person qualified to ascertain 
the value of our First Sort. We mer- 
chants, planters, principal traders and 
others, do, therefore, hereby certify under 
our hands, that Mr Moses Lindo, of 
Charles-Town, merchant, is the only per- 
son kown to us, capable of rendering this 
province further service in that article, 
if he is willing to undertake ascertaining 
the same and to grant his certificate for 
the First Sort." 

This testimonial was signed by the Hon 
William Bull, Lieutenant Governor, 5 
Members of his Majesty's Council, the 
Speaker and 19 Members of the late Com- 
mons House of Assembly, 41 merchants 
and 7 "considerable planters of, or deal- 
ers in indico." 

THE LEADING INDIGO PLANTERS. 

Because of the local interest attaching 
to the names appended to this testimonial, 
I print it in full: 

*Hon William Bull, Esq. Lieutenant 
Governor; the Hon Othniel Beale, Esq, 
*Henry Middleton, John Guerard, *John 
Drayton and *Daniel Blake, Esqrs, mem- 
bers of his Majesty's Council. 

Benjamin Smith, Esq, Speaker, and 
♦Thomas Middleton, *Winiam Moultrie, 
*P©ter Manigault, William Scott, *Thomas 
Bee, *William Blake, William Roper, 
"^Robert Pringle, *Thomas Lynch, ♦Raw- 
lins Lowndes, *Benjamin Dart, *John 
Ainslie, *Thomas Ferguson, *John Parker. 
♦James Parsons, ♦William Maxwell, 
♦Doet John Murray and *Sir John Colleton, 
members of the late Commons House of 
Assembly. 

Messrs John Chapman, John Torrans, 
John Greg, John Poan, ♦John Smith, 
Thomas Liston, ♦Paul Douxsaint, ♦Miles 
Brewton, Henry Peronneau, Thomas 
Corker, John Lloyd, Arthur Peronneau, 
William Ancrum, Lambert Lance, *Rich- 



ard Downes, John Benfield, Henry Lau- 
rens, Georg-e Appleby, John Logan, Martin 
Campbell, John Neufville, Edward Neuf- 
ville, Thomas Ellis, John Scott, Thomas 
Farr, jun, James Poyas, Evan Jones, 
•John McQueen, William Guerin, John 
Parrham, Robert Smyth, Peter Bacot, 
James Laurens, George Ancrum, Thomas 
Shirley, George Inglis, Robert Rowand, 
John Nowell, Samuel Peronneau, Peter 
Mazyck and Thomas Moultrie, merchants. 

Andrew Johnston, John Moultrie, jun. 
William Gibbes, Job Milner, Alexander 
Fraser, John Mayrant, William Brand- 
ford. 

Considerable planters of, or dealers in 
inddco. 

(Note— The gentlemen with the mark * 
prefixed to their names are likewise con- 
siderable planters of indico.) 

In consequence of the above testimonial 
and an application to the Governor, his 
Excellency, on Tuesday last, was pleased 
to order the following commission to be 
issued, viz: 

SOUTH CAROLINA: 

By his Excellency THOMAS BOONE, 
Esquire, Captain General, and Governor 
in Chief, in and over the said Province. 

TO MOSES LINDO, GENTLEMAN: 

WHEREAS, several of the most consid- 
erable inhabitants of the said province, as 
well planters as merchants, have by a 
writing signed by them, certified, that, in 
order to bring the indico produce into 
reputation at home and at foreign mar- 
kets, it is become necessary to have a 
proper person qualified to ascertain the 
First Sort; and that the said Moses Lin- 
do is the only person known to them ca- 
pable of rendering the province further 
service in that article, if he is willing to 
undertake ascertaining the same, and 
grant his certificate of its being the First 
Sort. And, whereas, the said Moses Lin- 
do, in order to give such his certificates 
the more weight and authority In Great- 
Britain, has made application to me, that 
he may be appointed Surveyor and In- 
spector-General of Indico in the province 
aforesaid. I, therefore, in consideration 
of the premises, and being convinced of 
the fitness and ability of the said Moses 
Lindo for discharging the said office, do 
hereby nominate, constitute and appoint 



you the said Moses Lindo to be Surveyor 
and Inspector-General of the Indico made 
in the said province, for the ends and pur- 
poses above mentioned. 

This commission to continue during 
pleasure. 

Given under my Hand and Seal at 
Charles-Town, this 21st day of September, 
Anno Dom. 1762, and in the second year 
of his Majesty's reign. 

THOMAS BOONE. 

By his Excellency's command. 

George, Johnston for 
John Murray, Dep Sec. 

(South Carolina Gazette, September 25 
1762.) 

The next notice in the Gazette Is an an- 
nouncement of Moses Lindo officially as 
Surveyor and Inspector General of In- 
dico. It is as follows: 

MOSES LINDO. 

Surveyor and Inspector-General of IN- 
DICO made in South Carolina, 

GIVES THE FOLLOWING NOTICES: 

That as there is at present no obligation 
on any merchants or planters to submit 
their Indico to his inspection, or on him 
to take that trouble for nothing, he will 
be ready and willing, after the 16th in- 
stant, to inspect any parcel for either, as- 
certain the FIRST SORT, and his certifi- 
cate therefor for the small consideration 
of ONE per cent on the value of the Indi- 
co so certified. 

That he will make no distinction of per- 
sons in inspecting and giving certificates, 
in regard to the quantity, but will with 
equal readiness serve a planter who 
brings only 50 tb to market, as him who 
may bring thousands. 

That where any differences arise, on al- 
lowances to be made for bad mixtures, 
the accidental dampness, or designed wet- 
ness of Indico to disguise the quality, he 
will expect TWO per cent for his decision 
and ascertaining the value; i. e., ONE per 
cent from the seller, and as much from 
the buyer. 

That all orders gentlemen intend to fa- 
vour him with, to purchase Indico on 
their accounts for exportation, must be 
delivered to him, or left at Messrs Inglis, 
Lloyd & Hall's, on or before the 16th in- 
stant; after which he will receive no more 
till those then in his hands are compleat- 
ed. 



And, that no planter or other person 
may complain that he means to injure 
them (which is far from hs intention) 
he declares, that he will not buy another 
parcel, till they have tried the market 
eight or ten days; when he will purchase, 
on orders upon some of the principal 
houses in town, at three months' credit. 

N. B.— He begs pardon for having 
omitted among the subscribers to the tes- 
timonial or certificate, in consequence of 
which he obtained his commission from 
the Governor, to give the printer the fol- 
lowing gentlemen's names: * * * 
(South Carolina Gazette, October 9, 1762.) 

THE THREE SORTS OF INDIGO. 
A few days later Moses Lfindo an- 
nounces: 

That he has opened an office on Mr 
Beresford's wharf, where constant at- 
tendance will be given every day in the 
week. (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays 
observed at other offices, excepted,) from 
8 o'clock in the morning till 1 in the af- 
ternoon, in order to survey, inspect and 
grant certificates for all parcels of indico 
that shall be brought to him for that 
purpose of the FIRST SORT. 

That he will not give his certificate for 
any indico, unless the planter produces a 
proper certificate of its being the growth 
of his plantation. 

That for declaring the first sort, and 
granting his certificate thereof, he ex- 
pects to be paid at the rate of twenty 
shillings currency, for every hundred 
pounds weight of indico mentioned in such 
certificates, and the like sum for settling 
any difference between buyer and seller, 
on every hundred pounds weight. 

That if any planter, in eight days after 
obtaining his certificate for the First Sort, 
desires him to procure a purchaser for the 
same, he in that case expects to be paid 
5 per cent commission, if such indico is 
not In any merchant or factor's hands; 
but if in a merchant or factor's hands, 
then only 20s per cent. 

That he will not sort, .garble and seal 
the First, Second and Third Sorts of in- 
dico of the present crop for exportation, 
but for the following gentlemen, who fa- 
voured him with their orders for that 
purpose before the 16th instant, or by 
orders obtained from them; for which his 
Charge will be 3 per cent, Casks and all 
other expences included. 



That all his fees must be paid him be- 
fore the delivery of his certificates. 

That he will not accept, or undertake to 
execute any orders from Europe or from 
any of his correspondents elsewhere, to 
purchase indico for them this crop. And, 

That if any unfair dealings should be 
discovered, by fraudulent mixtures, after 
he has given his certificate for any par- 
cels of indico, he is determined to expose 
such intended imposition. 

That after the first day of February 
next, he will not act in this or any other 
capacity, in purchasing or declaring the 
qualities of indico, until some regulation 
is made by Act of Parliament to encour- 
age the planting and manufacturing that 
valuable dye. * * * 

(South Carolina Gazette, October 23, 
1762.) 

The following will give an idea of the 
prices brought for South Carolina Indico 
of the first sort: 

"MOSES LINDO, Inspector and Survey- 
or-General of South Carolina INDICO. 
Having granted certificates for the FIRST 
SORT, sold at the prices opposite to the 
names of the respective makers (which he 
declares to be equal in quality to the best 
French that has been taken during the 
last or present war) viz: 

s. d. 
"His Honor the Lieut, Gover- 
nor's, sold at 27 6 per lb 

George Saxby, Esq 40 per lb 

John Moultrie, jun, Esq 40 per lb 

Sir John Colleton, Bart 30 per lb 

Mr Edmund Bellinger 30 per lb 

Alexander Fraser, Esq . .26 and 40 per lb 

Mr Charles Elliott 23 per lb 

David Deas, Esq 27 6 per lb 

Mr George Marshal 24 per It) 

John Pamor, Esq 27 per lb 

George Seaman, Esq 26 per lb 

Mrs Mary M. Daniel 23 per lb 

Mr William Campbell 21 per It) 

Mr William Pearson 25 per lb 

Mr Philip Porcher 27 6 per lb 

Mr James Laroach 22 6 per lb 

Mr James Commander 25 per lb 

Mr William Johnson 27 6 per lb 

Part of which is now on board the Bos- 
cawen, capt David Jenkins, commander, 
bound for London. 



IN THIS PUBLIC MANNER 

Requests, that the commissioners of liis 
Majesty's customs in London, will desire 
15 or 16 gentlemen, merchants, salters and 
brokers, conversant in this trade, to In- 
spect the said indico when landed, and 
declare their sentiments thereon in all 
the public papers. 

And, whereas, several other parcels of 
hidico have been shipped on board the said 
frigate, by divers persons, in like pack- 
ages, which have not been inspected or 
surveyed by him, he has, therefore, 
thought proper to give a certificate for 
every cask that has undergone his inspec- 
tion, and been sealed by him, specifying 
In the margin the kind, weight and tare, 
and registered the same in his office; 
which certificates Mr William Richardson, 
broker in London (one of the best judges 
of indico now left in England) will take 
care to cancel after inspection. This pre- 
caution is so eventually necessary for tne 
interest of a colony where any manufac- 
tures are produced, that in England the 
law has made it felony punishable with 
death, to counterfeit, imitate or alter any 
public inspector's mark." 

(South Carolina Gazettte, January 15, 
1763.) 

In his next notice Mr Lindo refers to 
his last big shipment. 

"When the last 55 hogsheads arrive in 
England, I flatter myself the world will be 
satisfied of my integrity of heart and the 
uprightness of my intentions; as well as 
be convinced, that I have devoted myself 
to the service of my native country, and 
equally so to this province; for, if the 
indico that has undergone my inspection, 
and obtained my certificates, shall be 
proved equal in quality to the best French 
(which I am confident it will) in that case 
£12,000 sterling per annum bounty will be 
saved to the Government, and the planter 
here always sure of getting 25s currency 
a pound for the First Sort, and in propoi- 
tion for the Second and Third, which will 
be sufficient to encourage them to go on 
in the planting and manufacturing that 
valuable dye." * * * 
IGNORANCE OF SOME PRETENDERS. 

It would thus seem as If Moses Lindo 
had been meeting with criticism and op- 
position. He ends his long letter: "Your 
publishing this letter may prevent some 

X3 



evil-minded persons continuing to insinu- 
ate, that, sensible of my superior knowl- 
edge and experience in all dyes and drugs 
to any in Europe or America, I only take 
the advantage of exposing the ignorance 
of some pretenders to the like, which is 
not my intention. I must, however, say 
that no person whatever, that has not 
been ten or twelve years constantly em- 
ployed as a broker of indico, can be a 
competent judge of that article, or the 
true value of each quality; therefore, an 
error in judgment after that time must be 
deemed a crime, not an oversight." 

(South Carolina Gazettte, March 26, 1763.) 

In his next notice Moses Lindo an- 
nounces amongst other things, that he 
will not purchase any Indico himself, in 
less than three or four days after it has 
been surveyed; when, if no better price 
can be obtained for it than his valuation, 
he will receive it at that, and pay for the 
same as he has hitherto done. 

(South Carolina Gazette, October 22, 1763.) 

In the Gazette of March 24, 1764, we read 
that "Moses Lindo, Esq; has lately been 
presented with the commission appointing 
him Surveyor and Inspector-General of 
Indico, under the great seal of the prov- 
ince." 

We continue to meet with Moses Lindo 
in the Gazettes for some years longer. Sev- 
eral of the advertisements are of no par- 
ticular interest, others are extremely in- 
teresting. For the sake of completeness. 
I shall jot down all the references to him 
in chronological order. He advertises on 
October 8, 1764. In his advertisement of 
May 4. 1765. he refers to "All the iniquitous 
practices whicn have been committed with 
Carolina Indico," and which he declares 
he will never countenance." 

AS A MEDICAL EXPERT. 

The next item is very amusing. It oc- 
curs in the Gazette of July 28, 1766. Moses 
Lindo in his investigation into the proper- 
ties of "roots and weeds," makes a valua- 
ble medical discovery, and, while not. as 
far as I know, a member of the medical 
profession, he is public spirited enough not 
to desire to retain the boon for himself, 
so he writes this letter to the Gazette: 

"MR TIMOTHY: 
"HAVING lately made a valuable dis- 
covery, the CURE of that grievous and 
common disease among the Negroes, 

13 



called the YAWS. * * * I beg leave to 
make use of the channel of your paper to 
make the Recipe public for the good of 
mankind, without the least view to my 
private advantage; and to request that 
such gentlemen whose negroes have been, 
or may be cured, will make the same pub- 
lickly known, so as to be communicated 
to his Majesty's other American domin- 
ions. I am yours, &c. 

MOSES LINDO, 
Inspector General of Indico. 

RECIPE TO CURE THE YAWS, &c. 

To a pound of Poke root, add three 
ounces of Tobacco, and an ounce of Ro- 
man Vitriol, boil the same in five quarts 
of water, till reduced to a gallon, and 
strain it. With this, wash the infected 
part three times a day. A pint is suflfi- 
cient for ten or twelve days. 

At the same time use a diet drink, made 
of Two pounds of Lignum Vitae 
shavings, four ounces of the bark of Sas- 
safras root, four ounces of Anniseeds, and 
half a pound of brown sugar, boiled in 
four gallons of water till reduced to three. 
The patient to take a pint a day, mixed 
with three pints of water for twenty days. 

Being a member of the medical fraterni- 
ty, and morally bound by the ethics of the 
profession— one rule in the code of which 
is, that all valuable discoveries are to be- 
come the property of all, I hasten to an- 
nounce my discovery to my confreres and 
hope that they may find the recipe as use- 
ful for the cure of the "Yaws," as did its 
original discoverer Moses Lindo. 

Moses Lindo advertises again on No- 
vember 10, 1766, and on January 19, 1767, he 
writes a long letter to Mr Timothy on the 
present status of Carolina Indico abroad. 

"I have lately observed with concern, in 
an account of a public sale of 12 casks of 
French, and 23 of Carolina Indico on the 
28th of August last * * * that all the 
French sold at 4s 5d per lb, while only one 
cask of the Carolina allowed to be fully 
as good as the best French, obtained no 
more than 3s 8d, and all the rest sold 
amazingly low." He attributes the dif- 
ference to a combination at home among 
the importers of foreign indico, to dis- 
courage its cultivation in his Majes- 
ty's Colonies. He "publickly avers" that 
the Carolina Indico, which he distinguishes 
as FIRST SORT, properly prepared by the 

14 



dyer, will yield a superior dye to the very 
best French. He ought to know more cer- 
tainly than the generality of people for 
"I have been allowed to be one of the 
best judges of Cochineal and Indico on the 
ROYAL EXCHANGE, for upwards of 25 
years past; and have not been thought un- 
worthy (when Sir Stephen Theodore Jan- 
sen represented the city of London in Par- 
Jiament) to be called with Mr Samuel To- 
rin, and Mr Daniel Valentine, to give my 
sentiments of Carolina Indico to the hon. 
House of Commons of Great Britain." 

OUR FIRST PLEA FOR "PROTEC- 
TION." 

Lindo was a man of resources and a true 
protectionist. He suggests, that as there 
exists a prejudice of 25 per cent against 
Carolina Indico brought about by the com- 
bination, that the British Parliament, in- 
stead of continuing the present bounty, 
should lay Is a pound duty on all the 
French, exported from Britain and which 
would save no less than £12,000 per an- 
num to the Government, and at the same 
time give sufficient encouragement to cul- 
tivate 1,500,000 tb in his Majesty's Colonies, 
for the use of British manufactories. * * * 
As Inspector-General of Indico in this 
province (though without a salary) he 
thinks it his duty "to rescue that valua- 
ble branch of our staples from the ma- 
lign influence of designing men," as far 
as it lies in his power. 

m the Gazette of October 10, 1771, Moses 
Lindo has a lengthy communication in 
defence of the custom of packing Carolina 
Indico in the Spanish shape. "Judges," hie 
says, "never buy from outward appear- 
ance; they will examine its inward 
Quality. Therefore, there can be no Fraud 
in the Imitation." He quotes in defence of 
his contention the custom of mercers who, 
in order to get off their fine silks, are 
often obliged to call them French, though 
wholly wove in Spitalfields. He makes 
several observations on Carolina, Florn- 
da and Guatemala Indico and ends by the 
statement that he has the interest of this 
country "as disinterestedly as much at 
heart" as any native, and is resolved to 
spend the remainder of his days here, 
where merit will meet with its reward, 
without partiality, from the highest to the 
lowest of its inhabitants. 



15 



In the Gazette of July 23, 1772, Moses 
Lindo advertises that it would afford him 
great satisfaction, if three or four per- 
sons, well experienced in the Indico busi- 
ness, would undertake the sorting and 
garbling of Indico for exportation, by 
which means that valuable produce might 
recover its reputation both at home and 
at foreign markets. His own services are 
only at the disposal of his regular pa- 
trons, whose names are appended * * * 

On August 6, 1772, there is an announce- 
ment that Moses Lindo, Esq, has resigned 
the Place of Inspector-General of Indico 
for this province. 

On August 20, 1772, Lindo publishes a 
letter to Henry Laurens, Esq, containing 
his reasons for refusing to act any longer 
as Inspector-General of Indico. He would 
not seal certain classes of Indico "and 
bring disgrace on the Seal with a Crown 
over G. R." He would still continue, how- 
ever, to serve his friends, if his knowl- 
edge can be of any use to them. 

On November 12, 1772, he advertises 
again vindicating the action he has tak- 
en. 

SENDS A TOPAZ TO THE QUEEN. 

The next item is a most interesting one 
and deserves to be investigated if only 
for curiosity, by some English-Jewish an- 
tiquarian. It occurs in the Gazette of 
March 15, 1773. 

"Moses Lindo, Esq, his Majesty's In- 
spector General of Indico, having, about 
eight years ago, accidentally met with, 
and for a Trifle purchased, a Stone 
(among others) found in this province, 
which he judged to be a WATER SAP- 
PHIRE or TOPAZ, and then declared to 
be too valuable a jewel to be possessed 
by any other than the Queen of England, 
making a Vow, that it should be sent to 
her Majesty; we hear, has accordingly 
sent the same, in the Eagle Packet-Boat, 
by the Hands of the Right Hon Lord 
Charles-Greville Montague, to be present- 
ed to her Majesty. The size and shape of 
this Stone is like Half a Hen's Egg, and 
the Weight 526 Carats." 

I confess that I am curious as to the 
subsequent fate of this stone and I pro- 
pose to try and find out something fur- 
ther about it, 

i6 



On September 6, 1773, Lindo publishes a 
lengthy letter to Mr John Ledyard, of 
Melksham, in Wiltshire, pointing out 
many fallacies in t.^e statements made 
abroad concerning Carolina Indico and 
showing him how he may prove his own 
statements by actual experiment, the ma- 
terials for which he is sending him. This 
letter is a splendid illustration of Lindo s 
patriotic feeling and of his untiring efforts 
in behalf of the province. 

On November 22, 1773, Lindo makes a 
statement of the fight he is making 
against the combination in London against 
Carolina Indico. He recites what he has 
done to promote the welfare of the prov- 
ince and refers to a recommendation that 
is to be made to the General Assembly 
to allow him a yearly salary besides fees. 
He has not become wealthy as the result 
of his work: "Should any accident befall 
me thro' the infirmities of age or other- 
wise, I am persuaded it is not difficult for 
j-ou, or any of my friends to conceive how 
very wretched a being would be Yours, &c, 
"MOSES LINDO." 

He still signs himself Inspector-General 
o£ Indico. 

On December 27, 1773, there is a notice 
that 13,000 pounds weight of Indico, be- 
longing to two planters, were last week 
sold by Mr Samuel Prioleau, jun, at a 
Dollar a pound to Moses Lindo, Esq; In- 
spector-General, who has declared that 
the whole quantity is equal if not superior 
to any French that, in the many years' 
experience he has had, has gone thro' his 
hands, or fallen under his observation. 

DIES HERE IN 1774. 

Moses Lindo died in 1774. The South 
Carolina Gazette in which he had adver- 
tised so extensively for so many years. 
makes no mention of his death, but in the 
South Carolina Gazette and Country Jour- 
nal of Tuesday, April 26, 1774. we read: 

Charles-Town April 26, DIED, Moses 
Lindo, Esq; for many years Inspector- 
General of Indico in this Town. 

There is but one notice more and that 
in the South Carolina Gazette of May 23, 
1774: "Moses Lindo, Inspector-General of 
Indico, having departed this life, his Es- 
tate and Effects • * * will be sold at public 
outcry on Saturday, the 11th of June 
next." * * • 

17 



I have thus kept track of the subject of 
my sketch from the time he landed in 
South Carolina till his death. Moses Lin- 
do left no Will. The inventory of his es- 
tate, dated May 17, 1774, and appraised at 
£1,199.17.8 is recorded in the Probate Office 
Book V, p. 591. It has been a 
pleasure to me to perpetuate the memory 
of this public spirited and patriotic Jew 
who was a resident of Charles-Town from 
1756 to 1774, He is but one example of 
many of his faith who have contributed in 
no small way to the upbuilding of this 
great country. 



rH 



THE DAGGETT PRINTING CO., 
Charleston, S. C. 



OLD JEWISH CEMETERIES. 



htheire: the early settlers in- 
terred THEIR DEAD. 

— —^^ 

Dp Barnett A. Elasas Investigates a; 
Traditional Jewish Burial Ground 
on Archdale Street, bnt Finds More 
Hibernians than Hebrevrs — The 
Story of a Long-Forgrotten Ceme- 
tery on Hanover Street. 

One of the most notable traits in the 
character of the Jew, is his almost sub- 
lime devotion to his dead. This tender 
feeling for his departed loved ones has al- 
ways existed and the Jew is significantly 
taught in his sacred writings that the 
highest form of "loving-kindness"— the 
ideal, indeed, of loving-kindness, is that 
shown to the dead; for, as the rabbis well 
point out, it is a manifestation of unselfish 
love, inasmuch as it can seek no return. 
No matter where the Jew is scattered and 
dispersed, his first care is to acquire a 
burying place for his dead. Hence it is 
that we often find a Jewish cemetery be- 
fore an organized synagogue or congrega- 
tion exists. As a general rule, wherever 
a handful of Jews are found there will 
also be found a synagogue for worship, a 
school for the education of the young, 
and a burial-ground for the dead. 

The communal history of K. K. Beth 
Elohim of Charleston dates back to 1750, 
but I am satisfied that several years at 
least before this date the Jews of 
Charieston met regularly for public wor- 
ship. 

In my investigation into the history of 
this community I was puzzled to know 
where the old settlers who had died here— 
and I know of many— were laid to rest. 
The oldest tombstone we have is that of 
the Right Rev Moses Cohen, D. D., the 
first Chief Rabbi of the congregation, in 
the Coming Street Cemetery, and bears 
the date 1762. As I just observed, many 
Jews died here before that time. Where 
were they interred? 

After diligent inquiry I was told that 
there was an old burial-ground in Arch- 
dale street, which tradition said belonged 
to the Jews. I went on a tour of inves- 
tigation to the place indicated and only 
after several visits did I one day find the 
large gate open, so that I could gain ac- 



cess. I was already enjoying the antici- 
pated delight of making a find. But, alas, 
for the vanity of an antiquarian's hopes. 
The graveyard was full of O'HooIigans, 
O'Briens, O'Shaughnessys and O'Flynns 
and I came away convinced that I had 
made a mistake. "When you are investi- 
gating," I said to myself, "investigate for 
yourself and don't believe all that people 
tell you, or you will often be fooled." I 
have several times since experienced the 
profound truth of this graveyard medita- 
tion. 

I was as far from solving the mystery 
as I was before, but subsequent reflection 
made the matter clear to me. I had vis- 
ited an old plantation not long ago and 
had noticed a plot railed off, which was 
the family burial-ground. "Might not the 
Jews likewise have had their private 
burial-grounds in olden times?" I thought. 
I know now that there were several such 
in Charleston. The Tobias family e. g. 
buried their dead on their plantation at 
Hobcaw, near Mount Pleasant, but this 
has long since been turned into a ploughed 
field. Our oldest cemetery at Coming 
street, we are told in the deed, was 
originally purchased in 1754 by Isaac Da 
Costa, "For a private burying-place for 
his own family." Then there is the Han- 
over street ground, which Isaac Da Costa 
afterwards purchased in place of the 
former, for the same purpose. This brings 
me to the subject of my article. 

I was fortunate enough not long ago to 
find a copy of the old ConstiLut'.on of K. 
K. Beth Elohim of 1820 in New York. 
There is none here, and as I could not ob- 
tain the original I had a transcript made 
of it. It is a most interesting document, 
and I shall have a good deal to say of it 
at some future time. Rule IX of that 
Constitution reads as follows: 

"There shall be One Congregational 
Burial Ground only, wherein all the de- 
ceased members of this Congregation shall 
be interred, provided, that this law shall 
not extend to any family place of inter- 
ment already established; namely, that of 
the Tobias family, in which no other than 
that family and its nearest relatives may 
be interred with the honors of this Con- 
gregation. * * * 

This law considers the Burial Ground, 
heretofore called the Da Costa's, to be 
properly belonging to the family of Isaac 
Da Costa, sen., deceased, into which his 



near relatives are permitted to be interred 
and no other person, not even such per- 
sons as have relations already deposited 
there; provided nothing in this law shall 
extend to the exclusion of Mr Emanuel De 
La Motta, his wife and children." * * * 

We know the Da Costa ground, which is 
still used, but where was the "place of 
interment of the Tobias family?" I don't 
know. The Tobias family doesn't know. 
The oldest member of K. K. Beth Elohim 
doesn't know. Here comes the next link 
in the puzzle. 

I was examining an old Charleston di- 
rectory of a little earlier date than the 
constitution to which I referred. I was 
struck by the following items: 

HEBREW BURIAL GROUND (PUB- 
LIC,) COMING ST. 

HEBREW BURIAL GROUND (PRI- 
VATE) 2, HANOVER ST. 

Was this a printer's mistake? Likely 
enough, seeing that there were many 
typographical errors in the book. Or were 
there really two burial grounds on Han- 
over street? Was the other one that of 
the Tobias family, long forgotten? For 
some days I was too busy to find out, but 
the thing worried me and at last I went 
to look for myself. It was no easy matter 
to discover what I was looking for, but at 
last, at the end of a small lot hidden from 
view from the street, I saw tombstones, 
and after climbing over a dilapidated brick 
wall I found myself in reality in an old 
eighteenth century private Jewish Burial 
Ground! Here are the inscriptions of the 
tombstones: 

In Memory of— Samuel Levy— of Cam- 
den— who departed this life— June 20th, 
179ft— aged 18 years. 

In Memory of— Abraham S. Abraham- 
son of Samuel Abraham— who departed 
this life— on Edisto Island— September the 
26th 180&— aged 20 years one month and 15 
days. 

To the— Memory— of— Mr Henry Moses— 
who departed this life on Monday the — 
11th February 1814— In the 68th year of his 
age. 

Sacred— to the— Memory— of— Mrs Eliza- 
beth Moses— who departed this life on the 
—19th day of January 1819— in the 75th year 
of her age. 

Sacred— to the Memory of— Mrs Miriam 
Hyams— wife of— Samuel Hyams— and 
daughter of— Eleazer and Judith Levy- 
Born in Charleston So. Ca. in the— year 



1780 and a resident there— until her death 
on the— 19 of January 1821 * * * 

In memory of— Eliza Henrietta Levy— 
the infant daughter of Chapman and 
Flora Levy— who departed this Ufe— the 
7th day of March 1822— -aged 1 year and 17 
days. 

Rosalie Lambert— third daughter of Wil- 
liam and Rachel Lambert died 30th Aug. 
1835 (child.) 

Marion J. Tobias died 19th July 1836 
(child.) 

Sacred— to the Memory— of— Henry J. 
Harby Sen.— Born 12th October 1799— died 
14th September 1841. (?) 

Charles Ferdinand Smith— Son of 
Thomas and Everleen Smith (infant) d. 
July 1849. 

Henry J. Harby Junr— Born 1843 d. 1852, 

Sacred— to the Memory of— My mother- 
Rebecca Harby— Born 2d Oct 1768— died 
31st Dec 1854— aged 87 years 2 months 29 
days. 

Sacred— to the memory of— Catherine 
Frances— wife of C. F. Whippey— died 5th 
Nov 1858. 

Isaac Tobias—Born Feb 10th 1796— died 
Jan 28th 18G0. 

Tobias Harby— born Sept 22nd 1836-died 
April 17th 1860. 

Sophie Tobias— died Feb 13, 1866 (child.) 

Sacred— to the Memory of— Miss Caro- 
line D'L. Harby— Born May 4th ISOl— Died 
Jan 6th 1876. 

I thought that I had solved the mystery 
of the Tobias burial ground, but no one 
to whom I spoke of the matter could give 
me any information about it. With the 
kind assistance of my friend, Mr Henry 
De Saussure, I searched the title and 
found that this cemetery was conveyed in 
1798 by Betzje Henrickson to Henry Moses, 
Solomon Moses, Meyer Derkheim, Samuel 
Hyams, Benjamin Tores and Solomon 
Harby in trust "as a burying ground and 
place of interment for the said * * ♦ and 
their descendants, and also such other 
person and persons professing Judaism, 
as the Trustees for the time being or a 
majority of them shall for that purpose 
approve of." 

Strange it is, however, that the consti- 
tution of 1820, should not have referred to 
this ground, and still stranger is it that 
none of the old members of Beth Elohim 
should know anything about a Jewish 
burial ground that has been used as late 
as 1876. Barnett A. Elzas. 

[Reprinted from The News and Courier.] 



The Jews of 
Charleston. ♦♦ 



^* c5^ c^* 

A Review of the Article "Charleston** in 
Vol. 3, of the Jewish Encyclopaedia. 

^ ,^ S v,^<^' 

By Dr. BARNETT A. ELZAS, 
Rabbi of K. K. Beth Etohim. 

«^ «^ «^ 

[Reprinted from The Charleston News and 
Courier, December, 1902.] 



I have been an enthusiast on the sub- 
ject of the Jev/ish Encyclopaedia from its 
inception. It is an epoch-making work in 
the history of the Jews and of Judaism, 
and too much praise cannot be bestowed 
upon the genius who first promoted it and 
the publishers whose enterprise has ren- 
dered its publication possible, ffen years 
ago the possibility of carrying a work of 
such magnitude to successful completion 
would have been looked upon as a fan- 
tastic dream of a visionary. We all rejoice 
to-day in the fact that the Jewish Ency- 
clopaedia is now a reality. The third vol- 
ume has just come to hand and is a most 
welcome addition to its predecessors. 

There is one article, however, that dis- 
figures this otherwise excellent volume; 
an article that is without parallel in the 
number of errors that it contains, and of 
errors that could never have been made 
had the article been entrusted to one who 



was in the slightest degree familiar with 
his subject, or to one, even, who knew 
enough to use the available materials of 
others who have pursued the same line 
of investigation before. I regret that the 
article happens to be "Charleston." 

I would not have gone to the trouble of 
reviewing this article in detail but for the 
fact that we are fast approaching the 
time when the complete story of the Jews 
in America will have to be written. The 
Jewish Encyclopaedia is itseif going to 
furnish much of the material for the fu- 
ture historian. When the time comes for 
this story to be written— and It cannot be 
delayed much longer— the Jews of Charles- 
ton will be found to occupy a far more 
prominent place in the picture than many 
now imagine, for Charleston has from the 
first been marked as a maker of histor;-, 
and the Jews of Charleston have never 
been insignificant in the community to 
which they belonged. 

I will now proceed to an examination 
of this remarkable article — for the article 
is, in truth, a most remarkable one. It is 
written by Mr L. Huhner, A. M., LiL.. B., 
of New York, contains about a thousand 
words and more mistakes in those thou- 
sand words than I have ever met with 
in any single volume in the whole course 
of my reading experience. Mr Huhner is 
a prominent member of the American 
Jewish Historical Society, who, I am told, 
has made a specialty of South Carolina 
Jewish history. In the bibliography at the 
end of his article he refers twice to him- 
self—one reference being to an article that 
is not yet published. It is well that we 
have it, even if only from Mr Huhner 
himself, that he is an authority on the 
subject on which he writes; we certainly 
would never have suspected it from this 
specimen of his handiwork. 



The article begins, as an article on 
Charleston should begin, with the infor- 
mation that Charleston is in South Caro- 
lina, which is in the United States. But 
Mr Huhner cannot even tell that straight. 
He incidentally notes that it is the "capi- 
tal of the county of the same name." Such 
a misuse of terms is surprising in one 
educated for the Bar. Charleston is the 
county seat, but not the capital of Charles- 
ton County. In America States have capi- 
tals and not counties. 

Next follow references to the earliest 
mention of a Jew in Charleston and to 
Locke's Constitution. Both of these refer- 
ences are absolutely correct and are wor- 
thy Of special mention on that account. 
There is little else of which the same can 
be said. 

In the next item we are informed that 
"in 1702 Jews appeared in numbers and 
they seem to have influenced a general 
election." This is very vague, but I will 
not examine it too closely. Mr Huhner 
evidently does not understand the quota- 
tion from Rivers with reference to the 
bigoted Dissenters who protested in 170^ 
against the "Jews aliens" who had voted 
in the last election. The protest was 
against the legality of the election and 
bad nothing to do with its result, for the 
Jewish vote had not affected it. 

In the list of the earliest members of 
Beth Elohim Meshod Tobias appears as 
"Michael" Tobias; Mordecai Shef tail's 
name is spelt "Sheftail"— a clear misprint, 
and I^vy Sheftall's name is omitted. 

The next item of information is really 
funny. Moses Lindo is rightly quoted as 
the most conspicuous man among the 
Jews of South Carolina in provincial days. 
Mr Huhner refers to him as "Inspector 
General for South Carolina!" He evidently 
ly takes Lindo for a military man. Any- 



one who has read the newspapers of the 
period knows that Undo was "His Ma- 
jesty's inspector general of Indico" (in- 
digo) and later also of tobacco. 

We now come to the interesting period 
of the Revolution. Here Mr Huhner is at 
his best as a manufacturer of history. At 
the outbreak of the war, Mr Huhner tells 
us, the most prominent Jew was Francis 
Salvador, "who resided near Charleston, 
and whose remains are interred in the 
old Charleston Cemetery." Salvador, he 
further informs vis, "was a member of the 
Colonial Assembly as early as 1774, and of 
the Provincial Congress as well. He was 
one of the leading patriots of the South." 

This brief notice of Salvador is extra- 
ordinary, coming, as it does, from one 
who has written a special monograph on 
him for the Jewish Historical Society. 
Francis Salvador was certainly his name, 
and Francis Salvador was as certainly a 
patriot. But Francis Salvador did not live 
near Charleston, but at Ninety Six, which 
is in the northwest of the State, almost 
as far from Charleston as one could get 
without leaving South Carolina. Nor was 
Salvador "a member of the Colonial As- 
sembly as early as 1774." There never was 
such a body in South Carolina as "the Co- 
lonial Assembly." There was a "Commons 
House of Assembly of the Province of 
South Carolina," 'but no House was 
elected after Salvador came to America. 
Salvador came to South Carolina during 
the latter part of 1773, and the last elec- 
tion for the Commons House of Assembly 
ever held in South Carolina took place in 
1772. Nor are Salvador's remains interred 
in the old Charleston Cemetery. Salvador 
met his tragic end at Essenecca, some 
fifty miles from where he lived. (See Huh- 
ner's "Francis Salvador" in publications 
of American Jewish Historical Society, 



Vol 9, p. 120.) He may have been buried 
where he fell or he may have been carried 
to his own plantation. We have no infor- 
mation on the subject. It is Joseph Sal- 
vador who is burled here— the uncle and 
father-in-law of the patriot— and he is 
buried, not in the old burial ground here, 
(Coming street,) but in the Da Costa 
ground. (Hanover street.) 

"During the struggle for independence," 
we are next informed, "the Jews of 
Charleston distinguished themselves by 
their patriotism. Not a single case of 
Toryism was to be found among them." 

This would indeed be a remarkable fact 
were it true and a notable exception to 
traditional Jewish loyalty to the sover- 
eign Power. The veriest tyro, however, 
who knows anything at all of the history 
of South Carolina during the Revolution, 
could not be guilty of writing such non- 
sense. There were numbers of Jewish 
Tories in Charleston at the outbreak of 
the Revolution, and we have no reason 
to be ashamed of it. There was as much 
of patriotism in the Tory as there was in 
the most ardent Revolutionist and we meet 
wixh the very best in South Carolina as 
loyal subjects of the Crown. I need not 
mention names, McCrady has enough on 
the subject for anyone who desires the in- 
formation. There is no excuse for such 
ignorance in a man who pretends to have 
looked into the original sources for his 
facts— and no man can write history with- 
out doing •^his— else he is liable to be in hot 
water all the time. 

In the well known "Petition to Sir Henry 
Clinton," signed by 166 citizens of Charles 
Town, there are the names of seven well 
known Jews, (including some of Mr Huh- 
ner's "patriots") This petition sets forth 
that the petitioners "were very desirous 
to shew every mirk of allegiance and at- 



tachment in their power to his Majesty's 
person and Government, to which they 
were most sincerely affected, and, there- 
fore, humbly prayed that they might have 
an opportunity to evince the sincerity of 
their professions." 

In the Proclamation dated September 19, 
1780, we are informed that "The said Me- 
morials and Petitions had been referred to 
gentlemen of known loyalty and integrity, 
as well as knowledge of the persons and 
characters of the inhabitants, in order to 
report the manner in which the Memorial- 
ists had heretofore conducted themselves; 
and that they having made their report in 
favor of the persons undermentioned (166 
names, including the aforesaid 7 well- 
known Jews,) Notice is hereby given that 
if they will apply at the State House 
♦ * * and there * * * subscribe a declara- 
tion of their allegiance, they will receive 
a certificate, which will entitle them to use 
tne free exercise of their trades or pro- 
fessions, and the privileges enjoyed by the 
other loyal inhabitants of Charles-town." 

(The Royal South Carolina Gazette. 
Thursday, September 21, 1780.) 

In the list of those whose estates after 
the Revolution were "amerced in a fine of 
12 per cent ad valorem," there is likewise 
a well-known Jewish name. (See "Statutes 
of South Carolina, Vol VI, p. 633. 

But we are not yet through \rith Mr 
Huhner's story of the Revolution. 

Mr Huhner next refers to the traditional 
"Corps of volunteer infantry"— which in 
the next line is magnified into a regiment 
(!) "composed almost exclusively of Israel- 
ites," and "which was organized in 1779." 
"This regiment," Mr Huhner continues, 
"subsequently fought at the Battle of 
Beaufort." 

This special corps of King street Jewish 

merchants is, I am satisfied, one of the 

myths of history. Mr Huhner evidently 

6 



refers to Capt Richard Lushington's Com- 
pany of the Charles-Town Regiment of 
Militia. This contained several Jews, the 
names of whom have come down to us, but 
they are not those mentioned by Mr 
Huhner. This regiment was not organized 
in 1779, but had been in existence since 173S 
and had merely entered the service of the 
Revolutionary Government of the State. 
Nor did this regiment serve at the Battle 
of Beaufort, but only a detachment of it. 

I will not here discuss the names re- 
ferred to by Mr Huhner as having served 
on the field. He mentions only nine men. 
He informs us tliat Mordecai Sheftail was 
commissary general for South Carolina 
and Georgia. It is strange that Mr Heit- 
man does not put him down as a Continen- 
tal officer if he occupied such a position. 
He certainly did not hold this office for the 
State of South Carolina. The statement, 
too, that most of the Jews served as offi- 
cers, is not a fact, as I shall elsewhere 
show. 

Major Nones belongs to Philadelphia, 
and Mordecai Myers to Georgetown and 
not to Charleston. 

Among the Jews who held high offices 
in the State during the early portion of 
the nineteenth century are mentioned 
Myer Moses, a member of the Legislature 
in 1810, and Franklin J. Moses, Chief Jus- 
tice of South Carolina. Franklin J. Moses 
was not Chief Justice until after the Con- 
federate war. 

Amongst "other" prominent Charleston 
Jews during the early part of the nine- 
teenth century we find Myer Moses, one of 
the first "Commissioners of Education." 
Mr Huhner evidently thinks that lie is 
dealing with two people. There were two 
distinguished men who bore the name of 
Myer Moses. The above references, how- 
ever, are both to Myer Moses, Jr. Nor 
was he "one of the first "Commissioners 



of Education." There was no such office 
in existence at that time. Myer Moses, Jr, 
was one of the "Commissioners of Free 
Schools"— a purely local office, which had 
been in existence for upwards of a hun- 
dred years before Myer Moses, Jr, was 
elected to it. 

The first Jewish Reform movement be- 
gan in Charleston in 1824 and not in 1825, 
as stated by Mr Huhner. 

Isaac Harby was a prominent member 
of that movement, but he never was edi- 
tor of the City Gazette. John Geddes, Jr, 
was editor in Harby's day. 

The second split in Congregation Beth 
Elohim, in consequence of the introduc- 
tion of the organ, took place in 1840 and 
not in 1843, as Mr Huhner states. 

And lastly, the item with reference to 
the part played by the Jews of Charleston 
in the Confederate war, can only be read 
with feelings of contempt and disgust. 
Here it is: 

"At the outbreak of the civil war the 
Jews of Charleston joined their Gentile 
brethren in the Confederate cause. One of 
the prominent soldiers of the Confederacy 
was Dr Marx E. Cohen." (!) N'o one ques- 
tions the gallantry of this young soldier, 
who was shot at Bentonville, but why se- 
lect him alone of the hundreds who ren- 
dered equally signal service to their State? 
I uismiss the paragraph without further 
comment. One might wonder, however, 
whether such notices are inserted at ad- 
vertising rates. 

I could have said much more, but for- 
bear. Mr Huhner has covered himself 
with glory. He has erected to himself a 
monument more lasting than bronze. If 
anyone can point out the like of his work 
in the literature of ignorance, I would lil<e 
to know it. 1 think that he has accom- 
plished a unique feat— and all in a thou- 



8 



sand words! We may well congratulate 
ourselves. V/hat would have happened it' 
he had written two thousand? The 
thought is appalling. 

In conclusion, I would not have my read- 
ers carry away the impression that the 
article, "Charleston," in the Jewish En- 
cyclopaedia, by L. Huhner, A. M., LL. B., 
is a fair sample of that magnificent work. 
It is merely an illustration of the methods 
of department editors, who for reasons 
best known to themselves, entrust special 
work to those utterly incompetent to ac- 
complish it. "Vaulting ambition doth 
sometimes o'erleap itself." Perhaps some 
department editors are not quite as fa- 
miliar with their fields as their admiring 
friends or a generous public have led thera 
to believe. 

The Charleston Jewish community may 
not be as large to-day as it was in former 
years, but from a thorough knowledge of 
its past I do not hesitate to declare that 
its influence to-day in commerce, in civil 
affairs, and in the professions generally- 
taking it as a whole— is as great as it ever 
was. It is an ancient community and dur- 
ing the two centuries of its history its 
record has been a glorious one. It was 
worthy of a better fate than to be thus 
mercilessly butchered at the hands of a 
raw, amateur, would-be-historian. 



THK DAGGETT PRINTING CO., 
Charleston, S. C. 



HUHNER VS ELZAS. 



THE NEW YORKER OBJECTS TO 
DR ELZAS'S CRITICISMS. 



Some Correspondence that Does not 
Affect the Qnestions at Issnc— 
Faulty Encyclopaedias Cited in 
Defence of an Error — Stands by liis 
Story of Salvador — Is not Familiar 
with Tory Records of this State- 
Thinks liiisltingrton's Company was 
Composed of Jews — Continental Of- 
ficers from Other States Ci'edited 
to Sonth Carolina— Thinks the Act 
of 1811 Created First Free School 
Commissioners in Charleston. 
[Reprinted from The News and Couriei*.] 
To the Editor of The Sunday News: 
There recently appeareid in your columns, 
(December 14, 1902,) a review of my article 
on Charleston in the Jewish Encyclope- 
dia. The reverend gentleman Who wrote 
that review is a stranger to me, one whom 
I have never met nor correspanded with, 
though I became aware of his existence 
some eight months ago, w*hen I learned 
that, without my knowledge, he had ob- 
tained some unpublis'hed manuscripts of 
mine relating to the early history of the 
Jews in South Carolina from a person who 
neither had my authority or consent to 
make any sudh use of my work. 

The review is so grossly unfair and un- 
just as to make it absoluteily unworthy 
of consideration and I had determined to 
ignore it altogether, but for the fact that 
the reveren'd genitlemian has seen fit to 
have his attack reprinted, sending it 
broadcast not only tO' the press, but to 
private individuals as well. 

(Here follows correspondence irrelevant 
to the points at issue.) 

At the outset the review attempts to 
create an impression that my own work 
is unduly emphasized in the bibliography 
given in the Encyclopedia. A glance at 
the article will prove the absolute injus- 
tice of this. .The bobliography mentions 
most of the works from which my material 
was drawn and near the end of the list I 
felt justified in including my own essay, 
simply because it collects practically all 
the authorities on the subject Which I 



have been able to fin'd in New York libra- 
ries. This was done simply because such 
a collection may prove both useful and 
time-saving to others desiring to make 
further research. 

Practiicallj^ every criticism mentioned in 
the review is of a frivolous character. 
Thus, as to the position of Charleston, t'he 
reviewer says: "Mr Huhner cannot even 
tell that straight," for he calls it the capi- 
tal of the county of the sam« name. The 
use of the word "capital" in that connec- 
tion has been sanctioned by the very best 
authorities, and had the reverend gentle- 
man but taken the trouble to look at the 
Encyclopaedia Brittanica or Oham'bers's 
Encyclopaedia he would have found 
Charleston designated in the same way 
as the Capital of Charleston County. Lest, 
however, he might argue that these are 
English publications, I would call atten- 
'tion to t'he American Encyclopaedia, 
Volume 4. publishedi by D. Appleton & Co. 
and edited by no less distinguished writers 
than Greorge Ripley and Charles A. Dana, 
where he will find that the article o.n 
Charleston begins by calling it "the Capi- 
tal of Charleston County." The same is 
true of Johnson's Universal Encyclopae- 
dia, edited by that well known scholar, 
Charles K. Adams. In fact there is hardly 
an encyclopaedia of importance that does 
not call Ciharleston the capital of Charles- 
ton County. 

My failure to name Levy Sheftall as one 
of the early members of the Charleston 
congregation is commented upon, but the 
reveren'd gentleman well knows that my 
essay itself contains several other names 
besides which are not mentioned in the 
Encyclopedia article, simply because such 
an article must of necessity be condensed. 
He must aLso have known that I did not 
refer to Lindo as a military man and my 
article on Lindo, already in the hands of 
the editors of the Encyclopedia, will show 
that I had quite a little material on that 
Pre-Revolutiioinary worthy. 

I need not spen'd any time on his com- 
ments concerning Francis Salvador. My 
paper on that patriot, published long i9\nce 
and giving the authorities for the state- 
ments therein contained, is a sufficient 
answer. I pass over also the quibbling 
claim that there was no such body as a 
Colonial Assembly in South Carolina, but 
a "Comm^^ons House of Assembly." What 



does surprise me, however, is his infer- 
ence that Salvador never was a member 
of the Assembly at all. My published pa- 
per irives the authority for the statement, 
and I might ailso call attention to that 
magnificent work on American history 
puiblished under the auspices of Congress, 
edited by no less an authority fhan Peter 
Force, namely, the American Archives. In 
Volume 4, 5th series, of that work, page 
620, there appears the title "South Caro- 
lina General Assembly." The references 
there to Salvador will convince anyone 
that he was a member of that body. There 
are other references in that volume as 
well, particularly at page 626 anid at 637. 
The latter reference mentions that the 
General Assembly had received word to 
appoint a committee to meet the commit- 
tee of the Legislative council and the 
House had once appointed Col Pinckney. 
the Hon Mr Drayton and Mr Salvador for 
that purpose. In fact, by the Constitution 
of 1776, the members of the Provincial 
Congress, of w^hidh Salvador was a mem- 
ber, were also members of the General As- 
sembly. 

Both Drayton, in his memoirs, Volume 1, 
page 348, and Chapman, in his History of 
Edgefield County, page 150, refer to Salva- 
dor as a member of the General Assembly. 
As, however, my published essay on Sal- 
vador sufficiently covers the subject, it is 
needless to go into further detail. 

The criticism that Salvador's remains 
are not buried lin Charleston comes with 
ill grace indeed from the learned reviewer, 
w*ho for years has been rabbi in Charles- 
ton, and presumably ought to know the 
fact, because of the ease with which he 
can verify the same. Only as recently as 
May 30, 1902, however, he himself wrote 
in the Jewish Comment, "Francis Salvador 
was killed in 1776. His remiains rest in the 
old De Costa burial ground in Charleston, 
■w'here his tombstone can still be seen." 

I will frankly state that I was unable 
to find any reference to Jewish Tories in 
South Carolina dunng the American Revoi- 
lution. The reviewer refers to a petition 
to Sir Henry Clinton, signed by 166 citi- 
zens of Charleston and containing seven 
Jewish names. I confess I have been un- 
able to find a copy of this petition in our 
public libraries in New York and if such 
a petition has been discovered I am confi- 
dent that that discovery has been made as 



recently as within a year or two. Some 
t'hree years ago I examined every book 
on the history of Sout Carolina in the 
Denox, the Asto-r a/nd Columbia libraries, 
of this city, and was unable to find men- 
tion of Jewish Tories. 

I have long been familiar with the peti- 
tion of the citizens of Charleston to Gen 
Lincoln to surrender the town, because 
they felt that further resistance would be 
useless. That petition was signed by many 
Jews, it is true, and has long since been 
incorporated in my essay on South Caro- 
lina. The Jews who signed it, 'however, 
were patriots, not Tories, and this is evi- 
dently not the petition that the reviewer 
refers to. 

In looking over my notes, also, I find 
that t'hree years ago I examined that valu- 
able and scarce work on the siege of 
Charleston written by F. B. Hough and 
published by Munsell, at Albany. That is 
certainly the standard work on the sub- 
ject. While Hough does give an address 
of Loyalists in 1780 signed by over 200 
persons, it is equally true that not a sin- 
gle Jewish name appears among the signa- 
tures. 

Even if another petition has been dis- 
covered (and it must 'have been brought 
to lig^t very recently) it wouM by no 
means follow that even those names were 
names of Tories; for we gave a similar 
address in New York history and some of 
the names in that connection were proven 
to be names of patriots who were com- 
pelled to sign, by threats of violence or 
similar means. Assuming, however, that 
that was not the case in South Carolina, 
I will frankly say that I am glad that 
sufficient interest has been aroused in the 
South to bring to light new documents, 
and will repeat that muc'h more unpub- 
lished material must be in existence and 
will be discoverd when South Carolina fol- 
lows the wise policy of other States in 
collecting and publishing her public rec- 
ords. 

When, however, the reverend gentleman 
goes further in his review, refers to that 
petition as "the well known petition" and 
says that "the veriest tyro who knows 
anything at all of the history of South 
Carolina cannot be guilty," etc, and that 
"there is no excuse for such ignorance," 
his statement is, to say the least, grossly 
mislea!dtin-g, for he well knows that no suc'h 



reference has appeared in any published 
work, unless recently. And when he fur- 
ther says that Gen 'McCrady has enough 
on 'the subject for anyone who desires in- 
formation, he must be aware that the 
General makes no mention of Jewish To- 
ries in his great work, a work much of 
Which I had read and read with the in- 
terest it deserves, and of which South 
Carolina may justly he proud. It is most 
unfair, therefore, to call a recently dis- 
covered petition (if such is the fact) a 
copy of which cannot even be found in the 
Lenox Library of this city, a well known 
document. 

The learned reviewer next challenges 
my statemient as to the corps of volunteer 
infantry organized in 1779 and composed 
almost exclusively of Israelites. In this 
connection he says: "This special corps of 
King- street Jewish merchants is, I am 
satisfied, one of the myths of history." 

Lest anyone 'be misled by suc'h remarks, 
and in the interest of the Jewish commu- 
nity of Charleston, I will give my author- 
ity for the statement I have made. To my 
m,ind that company was a reality and by 
no means a myth. 

During the struggle for Jewish emanci- 
pation in Maryland, which commenced in 
1818 and lasted for six or seven years, bit- 
terly opposed by one element, while 
strongJy encouraged by the other many ad- 
dresses were delivered by prominent men 
and many pamphlets were circulated: on 
the subject, som.e of which have come 
down to us. 

When the struggle w^as at its height ir^ 
1834 an address was made in favor of the 
"Jews bill" before the House of Delegates 
by Col J. W. Worthington, who in view 
of the bitter opposition must have been 
careful indeed about the facts he cited 
in favor of his contention. In that address 
occurs the fo^Uowing statement: "Here is 
another paper which contains the names 
of the corps of volunteer infantry in 
Charleston, South Carolina, in February, 
1779. It was composed chiefly of Israelites 
residing on King street and was com- 
ma-nded by Capt Lushington and after- 
ward fought under Cren Moultrie at the 
ttattle of Beaufort." 

If further evidence is required I would 
refer the reviewer to a paper prepared for 
Volume 2 for the American Jewish Histori- 
cal Society publication by Prof Her'bert 



B. Adams and Prof J. H. Hollander, where 
references are made to a letter written 
many years ago by Jacob I. Cohen to the 
famous Jared Sparks, of Harvard Uni- 
versity. From the letter I quote the fol- 
lowing: "I mentioned to you a military 
connpany that was formed in Charleston, 
South Carolina, composed almlost exclu- 
sively of Israelites, of which Tny uncle 
was a member," etc. A similar statement 
is made, I believe, in the address of Dr 
De La Afotta, delivered at the consecra- 
tion of the Savannah synagogue in 1820. I 
would als'o refer to the paper in Leeser's 
Occident. Volume 16, page 143, and Mr Koh- 
ler's "Incidents of American Jewish Pa- 
isitoirm," Volume 4, American Jewish 
Historical Society puiblications, page 96. 

It is unnecessary to answer the criti- 
cism that I refer to so few of the South- 
ern Jews who served in the field, for that 
would be imipossible in an article limited 
to 1,000 words. 

The next criticism refers to Mordecai 
Sheftall, whom I refer to as commissary 
general for South Carolina and Georgia. 
The reverend reyiewer implies not only 
that this was not the fact, but says fur- 
ther: "It is strange that Mr Heitman does 
not put him dotvn as a Continental officer 
if he occupied such a postion." I cannot 
understand the motive for making such a 
miis'statement. It requires but a glance at 
Heitman's Historical Register, published in 
1893, at page 63, to find Mordecai Siheftall 
mentioned as a Continental officer. As to 
his appointment as deputy commissary of 
issues in S'outh Carolina and Georgia, see 
Journal of Congress, October 28, 1778, and 
Dr Friedenwald's paper in three American 
Jewish Historical Siociety pubhcations, 
page 86. In his petition, also, Sheftall re- 
fers to ihimself as deputy commiissary of 
issues for the Southern department during 
the Revolutionary war." See Kohler's ar- 
ticle, above referred to. where* additional 
authoirit'ies are given. (See, also, my paper 
on Mordecai Sheftall in Jewish Comment 
for Novembe-r, 1900.) 

The reviewer takes offence at my men- 
tion of Major Nbnes in connection with an 
article on Charleston. Major Nones was a 
French Jew, and I will give his own w^ords 
as to his Revolutionary career: "I fought 
throughout the whole of the Revolutionary 
war in the militia of Charleston and in 
Polafsky's Legion. I fought in almost 



every action whidh took place in Caro- 
lina." (See Dr Adler's paper In 1 A. J. H. 
S., page 112.) It was certainly no more 
than r'ight to include Major Nones in an 
article on Chaxleston, even th'ough he sub- 
sequently resided in Philadelphia. 

The statement made in my article that 
Myer Moses was one of the first coimmis- 
sioners of education in Charleston is de- 
nied in the review, with the foillowing 
comment: "Myer Moses was one of the 
commissioners of free schools— a purely 
local office, which had been in existence for 
upwards of one hundred years before 
Myer Moses was elected to it." 

Let us see. In an elaborate article on 
"Eiducation in Charleston," written for 
the Charleston Tear Book for 1886 by Mr 
Henry P. Archer, superintendent of city 
public sdhools, the following statemient is 
made at page 174: "The free schools thus 
far established were by special Acts of 
the Assembly and for special purposes, 
but on the 2d of December, 1811, the Legis- 
lature passed an Act establishing free 
schools throughout the State, and this was 
really the beginning of the public school 
system, as such, in South Carolina." 

"One of the provisions for carrying the 
Act of 1811 into effect was that the Legis- 
lature every three years -appoint not less 
than three nor more than thirteen comi- 
missioners of each election district. The 
number appointed by the Legislature 
which passed this Act was as follows: 
Thirteen for St Philip's and St Mary's 
(City of Charleston.) The thirteen com- 
missioners were-^Myer Moses, etc.etc." 

Thiat certainly disposes of the criticism 
on my statement. 

I feel I have already taken up tota much 
of your valuable space. 

What I have said was said simply to 
correct erroneous impressions that may 
have been created by that unfair review. 

With the reviewer's gru'dge toward the 
editors of the Encyclopedia I have noth- 
ing to dO' any more than with his abusive 
language. He is a stranger to me and I 
certainly (have no feeling in the matter. I 
believe, however, that I may honestly say 
that the Charleston community may read 
my sketch in the Encyclopedia with just 
pride and satisfaction. 

Trusting that you will insert the fore- 
going as a simple act of justice I am 

Leon Huhner. 

New York, February 3. 



EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL. 

♦ 

Dr Elzas Substantiates bis First 
Criticisms. 

Inasmuch as the original review of Mr 
Huhner's article, "Charleston," in the 
Jewish Encyclopedia, was written by Dr 
Elzas at the request of The News and 
Courier, the foregoing reply of Mr Huh- 
ner has been referred to Dr Elzas, who 
makes the following rejoinder: 

So Mr Huhner has replied. I would have 
allowed Mr Huhner to have the floor and 
not bothered with him any further, but 
his letter contains so much of a personal 
nature that might mislead, and so much 
plausible error, that I am compelled again, 
though most unwillingly, to devote atten- 
tion to him and show that my criticism 
was neither unjust nor unfair, but most 
just and eminently proper. 

First, then, let me dispose of the mys- 
terious correspondence of Mr Huhner with 
the "Southern gentleman." The story can 
be told in a very few words. Some time 
in 1900 or 1901, having to lay over for a 
few hours in Columbia, I dropped into 
the office of the "Southern gentleman" to 
say good-bye. On his desk, open, lay Mr 
Huhner's article, which to the best of my 
belief had already been published. I knew 
nothing of how it got there. A brief 
giance showed me what the article was, 
but I was particularly attracted by Mr 
Moses Lindo's Revolutionary title. I drew 
my friend's attention to it and he asked 
me whether it was the only mistake I 
saw. I will state here that the abstract 
in the American Hebrew to which I shall 
refer is a good condensation of the paper, 
the only addition that I can remember be- 
ing a long excerpt from the Charleston 
Year Book for 1883 and a list of Revolu- 
tionary patriots, "possibly Jewish." Hav- 
ing a five hours' ride on the train I asked 
my friend whether I might read it through 
and return it to him. He assented and 
I took it. It took me just fifteen minutes 
to read it. I found that there was abso- 
lutely nothing in it. I put it in my satchel 
and it was never again opened by me. 
The article was promptly returned to Co- 
lumbia. What I thought of it may be 
gathered from an extract of a letter of 

8 



mine to Funk & Wagnalls dated July 17, 
1901: "It occurred to me at the time that 
the 'research' therein contained together 
with the article itseif might have occupied 
its author a half dozen liours, and he have 
time to spare." But that is neither here 
nor there. Why I demanded the return 
of my contracts with Funk & Wagnalls 
and later refused to surrender my article 
is of no interest to the general reader, 
nor has it any bearing upon the subject of 
my review. 

Mr Huhner is of opinon that practically 
every criticism I made is frivolous. I will 
again try to convince him to the contrary. 
With all his authorities and with all his 
preparation, he has been unable to answer 
one of them. I will leave the question of 
whether Charleston is the Capital of 
Charleston County and come at once to 
Moses Llndo. 

"He must also have known," says Mr 
Huhner, "that I did not refer to Lindo as 
a military man." To the best of my recol- 
lection—for I did not make a single note 
of the article — Mr Huhner referred to 
Lindo as a rich Charleston farmer, who 
during the Revolution became Inspector 
General for South Carolina. But I must 
not trust to memory. Let me quote the 
abstract of Mr Huhner's paper, which ap- 
peared three days after its delivery in the 
"American Hebrew" of December 29, 1899. 
It will be found on p. 267 and affords am- 
ple testimony as to the standing of Mr 
Huhner as a historian. As no correction 
was made in any succeeding issue, we are 
justified in taking the report as correct. 
Here is the opening paragraph, faithfully 
copied: 

"Leon Huhner, Esq, read his paper, en- 
titled "The Jews of South Carolina Prior 
to 1800." The settlement of Charleston 
took place in 1686, and nine years later a 
docum.ent makes some mention of a Jew. 
It is a remarkable fact, worthy of com- 
mendation, that during the Revolutionary 
War not one Jew with Tory tendencies 
was found. AMONG THOSE WHO WERE 
IN THE ARMY WAS MOSES LINDO, 
who held an important post, and Francis 
Labrador, perhaps the most distinguished 
of all. One of the corps of volunteers or- 
ganized for the defence of Charleston, in 
the latter part of the war, was composed 
chiefly of Israelites, and of this corps 
favorable mention is made in the war an- 
nals, though unfortunately the names of 



those composing it are lost. A remarka- 
ble fact Is that most of the Jewish sol- 
diers were officers of some rank." 

The capitals are mine. Labrador is a 
mistake evidently for Saivador, but La- 
brador is just as correct as the rest of the 
statements, all of which are incorporated 
in the article in the Encyclopaedia. The 
date 1686 is not a mistake, for the second 
reference is to Archdale in 1695. The New 
York libraries must possess remarkable 
books to have yielded such original re- 
sults even to an explorer of Mr Huhner's 
ability. So much, however, for Mr Huh- 
ner's honesty. 

And now for Mr Salvador. In Mr Huh- 
ner's article, referring to this patriot, we 
were informed that Salvador resided near 
Charleston, that he was a member of the 
Colonial Assembly as early as 1774, and 
that his remains were interred in the old 
Charleston cemetery. In my review I 
pointed out that Mr Huhner made no less 
than four mistakes in these three state- 
ments. Those four mistakes are still there 
If Mr Huhner had been familiar with the 
history of South Carolina he would have 
been abie to understand what he read in 
Force's "Archives." I repeat what I said 
in my review that Salvador was never a 
member of the Commons House of Assem- 
bly of the Province of South Carolina, or, 
as Mr Huhner calls it, the "Colonial As- 
sembly." He was a member of the sec- 
ond Provincial Congress which declared 
South Carolina AN INDEPENDENT 
STATE, and which resolved itself into a 
General Assembly. It is apparent, there- 
fore, that it is incorrect to term that a 
"Colonial Assembly." It was a State 
Legislature, and was not even elected as 
such. I can make the case no stronger 
than by quoting Mr Salley's review of Mr 
Huhner's "Salvador" in the South Carolina 
Historical Magazine for January, 1902. Re- 
ferring to Mr Huhner's statement that 
Salvador was "elected a member of the 
General Assembly of South Carolina," Mr 
Salley says: 

"That is not true. No election for mem- 
bers of the Commons House of Assembly 
(not General Assembly, for there was 
none) ever took place in South Carolina 
while Salvador was a resident of the 
Province. The last election heki prior to 
the independent government established 
March 26, 1776, was held the latter part of 
1772— before Salvador came to South Car- 
lo 



olina-and the first election for the Gen- 
nf^jTf/?"',^'^ ,^^eated by the Constitution 
of 1776 took place in October, 1776— after 
Salvador's death. Salvador was, however 
a deputy to both of the Provincial Con- 
gresses held in South Carolina prior to 
the Constitution of 1776." 

This is surely clear enough to one who 
knows the history of South Carolina It 
IS not quibbling. Mr Huhner has authori- 
ties enough, but does not know enough of 
the subject to understand what he reads 
But Mr Huhner makes a big hit My 
article in the "Jewish Comment" for May 
30, 1902, is his authority for the statement 
that Salvador is buried here. His article 
m the Encyclopaedia shows quite a cred- 
itable acquaintance with mine in the Jew- 
ish Comment, only it is well embellished 
and It is the adornments that have got 
Mr Huhner into trouble. He appropriated 
my silver and forgot to rub off the hall- 
mark. The mistake I made was due to the 
fact that my article was written at a few 
hours' notice and was corrected in the 
following number and does not occur in 
the reprint in the "Israelite" or in The 
News and Courier. The mistake was an 
unfortunate one for Mr Huhner. 

Mr Huhner next tells us that he was un- 
able to find my reference to Jewish Tories 
in South Carolina during the American 
Revolution. He can't find the "Petition 
to Sir Henry Clinton" with the names of 
Jews, in the libraries in New York, and if 
such a petition has been discovered it 
has been discovered as recently as within 
a year or tv/o! Some three years ago he 
examined every book in the Lenox, Astor 
and Columbia libraries and was unable to 
find mention of Jewish Tories. Even Mun- 
sell's "Siege of Charleston," "which is 
certainly the standard work on the sub- 
ject," didn't enlighten him. 

Poor Mr Huhner! Who on earth but Mr 
Huhner would ever dream of writing the 
history of the Jews of Charleston in New 
York? If he is writing the early story, 
has he in New York the 36 volumes of 
Records relating to South Carolina from 
the State paper oflSce in London, the Jew- 
ish references in which I recently pub- 
lished? Has he in New York the Probate 
Records, or the Records of Mesne Convey- 
ance? Has he in New York the primary 
sources of all history, the Gazettes? Yet 
what history can possibly be written with- 
out these? The best that can be done is 



only second-hand scissors-and-pencil writ' 
ing, and Mr Huhner cannot even do that 
intelligently. Just imagine a man who 
pretends to be a historian declaring that 
"it is most unfair to call a recently dis- 
covered petition (if such is a fact) a copy 
of which cannot even be found in the 
Lenox Library of this city, a well known 
document!" Mr Huhner is to be pitied 
rather than blamed. 

But the New York libraries are not as 
bad as Mr Huhner makes them out. The 
fault is not with the libraries. Does the 
Lenox Library not possess Sabine's 
"American Loyalists?" If Mr Huhner had 
consulted even that supremely wretched 
work he would have found the name of 
Isaac De Lyon. All honor to that man 
who showed a fearless devotion to princi- 
ple amid the opposing current of popular 
opinion and whose conduct was guided by 
his best judgment for his country's good. 
He was in excellent company. He is to 
be respected far more than those who sat 
on the fence, and there were many such. 

If Mr Huhner knew anything of South 
Carolina history, he would have known 
that the estates of the Tories were con- 
fiscated after the Revolution and he could 
have found the list in Vol VI of the 
"Statutes of South Carolina," p. 633. Here 
he likewise would have found the name of 
Isaac De Lyon. Is there not a copy of 
this in New York? There would doubtless 
have been other amercements, but the 
others were poor or had been impover- 
ished by the war and they had nothing to 
amerce. 

And who but Mr Huhner would think of 
describing Munsell's "Siege of Charles- 
ton" as "Certainly the standard work on 
the subject?" One might almost doubt 
whether he has seen the inside of it. This 
is one of the rare books printed in Albany 
in 1867, in a limited edition of 100 copies, 
and largely made up of abstracts from 
contemporary NEW YORK papers— Riv- 
ington's Gazette— and New York was a 
long way from the scene. 

And now a word as to the petition to 
Clinton. McCrady mentions it and has a 
powerful word to say in defence of those 
who signed it, and who afterwards took 
the field. There is no record of Jews be- 
ing amongst these, and I prefer to take 
the records in preference to Mr Huhner. 
The document speaks for itself. Here are 
166 citizens of Charles Town, including 7 



well known Jews, affirrain!? that they are 
"most sincerely affected to his Majesty's 
person and Government" and petitioning 
to be allowed "to evince the sincerity of 
their professions." This petition was re- 
ferred to "gentlemen of known loyaicy 
and integrity, as well as knowledge of the 
persons and characters of the inhabitants, 
in order to report the manner in which 
the memorialists had heretofore conduct- 
ed them.selves," and they report favorably 
on the cases of the 166 citizens, including 
7 Jews whose names are known to us. It 
Is surely not my fault that the Lenox 
Library has not a copy of this document. 
I can tell Mr Huhner a great many other 
things relating to South Carolina that 
they do not possess in New York. But 
that petition was published in the Charles- 
ton papers at the time of its presentation 
and has been here in the Charleston Li- 
brary ever since. It has been examined 
by hundreds of people as the well-worn 
page attests. Does anyone still doubt the 
fact that the man who writes on South 
Carolina history cannot do the subject or 
any feature of the subject justice, unless 
he exploits the records of South Carolina 
in South Carolina? Let others learn this 
much-needed lesson. 

I must now again refer for Mr Huhner's 
benefit to the traditional "corps of volun- 
teer infantry" and give him some addi- 
tional information. I repeat what I said 
in my review, this corps is a myth. Mr 
Huhner produces remarkable authority. 
Let us see what it amounts to. He refers 
especially to an article in Leeser's "Occi- 
dent" for 1858 and to Mr Kohler's article 
in Vol 4 of the Am. J. H. S. The latter is 
identical with the former and is nothing 
but a clipping from the Occident. Here it 
is, almost in its entirety: 

SOUTH CAROLINA JEWISH PATRIOTS 

The following item from an article by 
Rev Isaac Leeser, in the Occident, Vol 
XVI, p. 142 (1858) gives in some little detail 
a story since then oft repeated; the prima- 
ry authorities for the incident are still un- 
known to the writer thereof: "A com- 
pany of soldiers who did good service in 
the defence of Charleston harbor were 
nearly all, if not ali, Jews. The names of 
Daniel W. Cardozo, Jacob I, Cohen, Sr, 
and Isaiah Isaacs, we think, must have 
been on the roll of that company. * * * 
Sheftall Sheftall, Isaac N. Cardozo, a 

13 



brother of David, and Col Bush, occur to 
us just now as brave soldiers in the Revo- 
lution, and no doubt many others are 
known to other persons." Compare with 
this the following passage from a speech 
of Col J. W. D. Worthington on the Jew 
bill, Maryland, 1824, (Speeches on the Jew 
Bill, etc, by H. N. Brackenridge, Phila. 
1829, p. 115:) "Here is another paper which 
contains the names of a corps of volun- 
teer infantry, in Charleston, South Caro- 
lina, in February, 1779. It "was composed 
chiefly of Israelites, residing in King's 
street and was commanded by Capt Lush- 
ington, and afterward fought under Gen 
Moultrie at the battle of Beaufort." 

As for the company of Jews in the de- 
fence of Charleston harbor, it is most re- 
markable that no mention of it is made 
in contemporary records. It is certainly 
original for historians to mention names 
whom they "think must have been on the 
rolls." Col Bush, a Jew, in South Caro- 
lina, is a new name to me. 

The second corps is the traditional one 
organized in 1779. The foregoing clipping 
shows that I was correct in my review, in 
surmising that Mr Huhner referred to 
Capt Richard Lushington's company of 
the Charles Town regiment of militia, I 
corrected Mr Huhner's mistake in giving 
the date of the organization of this regi- 
ment as 1779. It had been in existence 
since 1738. But do we know anything from 
other sources of Capt Lushington's com- 
mand? We do. In the Gazette of the 
State of South Carolina of November 11, 
1778, appear the names of 12 members of 
Lushington's company of whom but 2 are 
Jews. In the same for March 10, 1779, 5 
more names are given of men belonging to 
this company and only one of these is a 
Jew. So that, out of 17 names of men 
who served in this company at the time 
at which Mr Huhner says it was organ- 
ized, there are only 3 Jews. Lushington's 
command was probably in round numbers 
50 men. On the petition of militiamen who 
served at the siege of Charleston, and 
Lushington's company served in the siege, 
there are 12 or possibly 13 Jewish names. 
Suppose they all belonged to Lushington's 
company, would they constitute the bulk 
of that company? But why did they need 
Lushington at all, if Mr Huhner's "re- 
markable fact" is true that most of the 
Jewish soldiers were officers of some 
rank?" Let me dismiss Mr Huhner's mili- 

14 



tary history, by stating that I have a 
practically complete list of all the Jews 
who lived in Charleston during the Revo- 
lution, and that there were not enough 
Jews living in Charleston— of fighting age 
—to constitute a company. It is intelli- 
gible that an earnest advocate in an ex- 
cited debate should use every scrap of 
available fact and tradition, but there is 
no excuse for this in a man who pretends 
to write history. 

And now a word concerning Mordecai 
Sheftall. Mr Huhner referred to him as 
commissary general for South Carolina 
and Georgia. I objected, a little vaguely 
perhaps, that it was strange that Mr 
Heitman did not put him down as a Con- 
tinental officer— of course it was under- 
stood from South Carolina. Sheftall was 
a "Deputy Com.missary-General of Issues 
for the Southern Department," i. e., to 
the Continental Army assigned to tlie 
Southern Department. But is "Deputy 
Commissary-General of Issues for the 
Southern Department" synonymous in Mr 
Huhner's mind with "Commissary-Gener- 
al for South Carolina and Georgia? L^t 
Mr Huhner look at his history, if there is 
one in New York, and he will find that 
the commissary general of South CaroUna 
was a State officer of militia and that his 
name was Thomas Farr, Junr. 

And now just a word about Myer Moses, 
Jr. Here again Mr Huhner does not under- 
stand what he has read. Does this Act 
state that these were the first "Commis- 
sioners of Free Schools?" (not Education.) 
He refers to the Year Book for 1886, p. 174. 
Let me call his attention to p. 173. His- 
torians should always read the preceding 
page. Here we read as follows: 

"There can be no doubt that the free 
school for the inhabitants of South Caro- 
lina mentioned in the Act of 1712 was the 
free school established in Charleston un- 
der the Act of 1710 and that the gentle- 
men mentioned above constitute the first 
Board of Free School Commisisoners in 
Charleston and in the State." (Long list 
given above.) Can Mr Huhner read Eng- 
lish? This is surely evidence enough for 
my criticism that the office of "Commis- 
sioner of Free Schools" had been in ex- 
istence for upwards of a hundred years 
before Myer Moses, Jr, was elected to it. 

In my review of Mr Huhner's article I 
did not exhaust his mistakes, though I 
challenged nearly every statement he 

•J5 



made. I could proceed with these mis- 
takes and show further absurdities in his 
recently published "Jews of Georgia," 
where he volunteers some extraordinary 
information about the Jews of Charleston, 
but, unlilce Mr Hulmer, I will keep to the 
record. Mr Huhner knows absolutely 
nothing about the story of the Jews of 
Charleston. It is as yet an unwritten his- 
tory. How should Mr Huhner know it? 
He has not examined a single original 
record and he has not seen the records of 
Beth Elohim. Where is his history com- 
ing from? No man has a right to write 
history for an Encyclopedia, which sets 
itself up as autlioritative, witliout doing 
the work properly. I think that I have 
made good my claim that Mr Huhner's 
article is an unparelleled monument of 
ignorance. I am content to leave the mat- 
ter to the arbitrament of my readers. 

In conclusion I will call attention to this 
significant fact: Mr Huhner's paper be- 
fore the Am. J. H. S. was read in 1S99. In 
his article he refers to it in his biography 
as material available to the student. That 
paper has not yet been published. WHY? 
Barnett A. Elzas. 



THE DAQQETT PRTQ CO. CHASN. S. C 



ELZAS VS HUHNER. 



A FINAL. WORD IN THE JEWISH 
ENCYCLOPAEDIA CONTROVERSY. 



'^p:^ 

Dr Baruett A. Elzas Establisl&es tlie 

Justice of liis CriticiBms of Mr 

Huliner'a Article "Cliarlestoni" by 

Reference to Antborities in. tills 

State TFlioni None can Gainsay. 
LKepriuted from The News and Courier..] 

The following communication has been 
addressed by Dr B. A. Elzas to the "Jew- 
ish Comment" and to the "American He- 
brew" as a final word in his Jewish En 
cyclopaedia controversy : 

Editor Jewish Comment: 

In fairness to myself, I ask your indul- 
gence and space for the following corre- 
spondence, I think that it settles con- 
clusively the question of whether Mr Huh- 
ner has in any way justified himself in the 
matter of the article "Charleston" in the 
Jewish Encyclopaedia. 

February 9, 1903. 

Mr A. S. Salley, Jr, Sec, South Carolina 
Historical Society— Dear Sir: 

I am sending you my copy of Vol III of 
theJewish Encyclopaedia, containing the 
article "Charleston," also my review of 
same, as well as a marked copy of last 
Sunday's News and Courier. You will ob- 
serve that my Review has given rise to a 
very unpleasant controversy. Might I ask 
you in the interest of historical investiga- 
tion, and as an acknowledged authority on 
the history of this State, to prepare a 
brief resume of the relevant points in the 
respective papers, and to send same to me 
at as early a date as is convenient to you. 
I trust that you will find this matter of 
sufficient importance to warrant you in 
acceding to my request. 

Respectfully yours, Barnett A. Elzas. 

At the same time, I addressed a letter 
to Gen Edward McCrady, the historian of 
this State, who replied as follows: 

Dr Barnett A. Elzas, 
Charleston, S. C. February 11, 1908. 

Dear Sir: 



In reply to your letter of 10th, asking 
me whether I consider Mr A. S. Salley, Jr, 
the secretary of the South Carolina His- 
torical Society, competent to speak with 
authority on matters relating to the his- 
tory of the State, I readily reply that I 
do. I regard Mr Salley as one of the very 
best and most accurately informed stu- 
dents of the subject with whom I am ac- 
quainted, and one fully competent to 
speak with authority on matters relating 
thereto. Besides being secretary of the 
Society, he is editor of the Historical and 
Genealogical Magazine, published by that 
body, a position which he fills with great 
success. I have frequent occasion to con- 
sult Mr Salley upon this subject, and al- 
ways with profit and advantage. 

I am, dear sir, 

Yours very truly, 

(Signed) Edward McCrady. 

Mr Salley has sent me the following 
statement; 

Mr Huhner is in error when he states 
that the Jews seem to have infiuenced a 
general election in 1702. The minority con- 
sidered their votes illegal, and wished to 
throw out the election as an illegally con- 
ducted one. There were not enough Jews 
in the community to have affected the 
general result. 

Moses Lindo was not inspector general 
for South Carolina. Inspector general was 
a military office. He was inspector gener- 
al of Indico— a purely civil office. 

Mr Huhner says that Francis Salvador 
was a member of the Colonial Assembly 
as early as 1774, and of the Provincial Con- 
gress as well. Salvador was never a mem- 
ber of the Commons House of Assembly 
(or Colonial Assembly, as Mr Huhner 
calls it,) nor was he a member of any leg- 
islative body in South Carolina in 1774. 
Mr Huhner finds in Force's "Archives" 
that Salvador was a member of the Gen- 
eral Assembly in 1776. He seems unable to 
comprehend the difference between the 
Assembly of the Province in 1774 and the 
Assembly of the State in 1776. These were 
two entirely different bodies. 

There are several authorities in which a 
student can find the names of Jewish 
Tories. Sabine's "Loyalists" and the list 
of confiscated and amerced estates given 
in Vol VI, Statutes at Large of South 
Carolina, ought to be known to all who 



undertake to write of the Revolutionary 
period in South Carolina. The petition to 
Clinton cannot be regarded as a recently 
discovered document. It is and has been 
for generations a perfectly familiar paper 
to all who have done research work here. 
If Mr Huhner had consMlted any local 
worker he could have been informed on 
that point. It cannot be urged that its 
absence from a New York library excuses 
ignorance of its existence. Rich though 
the New York libraries are in Ameri- 
cana, they possess comparatively little on 
South Carolina. The materials for writ- 
ing the history of this State are only to 
be found here. It is likewise erroneous to 
call Munsell's "Siege of Charleston" "the 
standard work on the subject." It is an- 
other work prepared from a distance. 

That there were British sympathizers 
among the Jews of Charleston is abun- 
dantly evidenced by the fact that numbers 
of them continued to do business in 
Charleston during the period of British 
occupation. This is shown by the Gazettes. 
Those who had been hostile were sought 
out by the British and either banished or 
forbidden to do business. 

There was no company of volunteers or- 
ganized in Charles Town in 1779, nor was 
Lushington's company composed almost 
exclusively of Jews. The Militia Act of 
1778 prohibited the organization of vol- 
unteer companies after its passage. The 
company of the Charles Town regiment of 
militia, commanded during a part of the 
Revolution by Capt Richard Lushington, 
had been in existence since 1738, and during 
at least two years of the war— 1778-1780— 
contained a number of Jews, but they by 
no means constituted the greater part of 
the company, as our records will show. 

Mordecai Sheftall was not commissary 
general of South Carolina. 

Mr Huhner errs about Franklin J. 
Moses, and confuses the second Myer 
Moses with his father. That Myer Moses, 
Jr, was not one of the first "commission- 
ers of education" Dr Elzas has proved be- 
yond argument. 

I take no note of the dates referred to 
in the matters of the Congregational His- 
tory of Beth Elohim. Dr Elzas has the 
original minutes and should know of what 
he writes. 



Mr Huhner's reference to the paft 
played by the Jews of Charleston In the 
Confederate war 1b trifling In the ex- 
treme. A. S. Salley, Jr. 

Is there any excuse for an article with 
so many mistakes being allowed to find its 
way into an Encyclopaedia which claims 
to be authoritative? The question of 
whose initials are appended to an article 
is insignificant. We have a right to 
know, however, whether the Jewish En- 
cyclopaedia is to be a work in which only 
the best work of the best available men Is 
incorporated or whether it is to be merely 
a convenient publication of the efforts, 
good, bad and indifferent, of the friends 
of the department editors. 

Yours obediently, Barnett A. Elzas. 

Perhaps Mr Huhner is satisfied. Perhaps 
Mr Cyrus Adler is satisfied. Perhaps the 
Funk & Wagnalls Company are satisfied. 
For myself, the matter is now closed. 
Barnett A. Elzas. 

Charleston, February 18, 



THt DACIMTT PRT« OO OHACN.t.O. 



JOSEPH SALVADOR. 



JErWISH MERCHANT PRINCE WHO 
OAME TO SOUTH CAROLINA. 

He Raised a Million. Pounds for tbe 
Britisli Government at Tvt'o Hours* 
Notice and was Held in Higrli Es- 
teem in England— English Histo- 
rians Know Nothing of liis Later 
Career, which is Fully Revealed in 
the Records Here— He Came to this 
State, where he Owned 100,000 
Acres of Land, and, After a Resi- 
dence of T'TFO Years, Died in 
Charleston, at the Age of 86 — He 
was the Uncle and Eather-in-laiv 
of the Patriot Francis Salvador. 

(By Dr Barnett A. Elzas, Rabbi of K. K. 
Beth ]^ilOihim.) 

Before proceeding with my narrative I 
would again like to explain to my readers 
that I am at the present time merely 
printing a portion of my notes. These 
notes running as they do into thousands 
of foliO' pages, had become so unwieldly 
by reason of their bulk, that I thought it 
well to put at least a part of them into 
shape, so that I could handle them to bet- 
ter advantage in future. My correspond- 
ence, too, in many quarters, has been 
quite extensive, but much information 
that I expect to obtain is not yet in my 
possession. Till now I have dealt almost 
exclusively with the records existing in 
South Carolina. There is not much ma- 
terial outside of this State, but I hope that 
before writing my story in detail I shall 
have had access to several records in 
family Bibles, which are of historical in- 
terest and which are in the possession of 
people who no longer live here. These 
records will help to fill in the details of 
family history when of special interest, 
though their absence will not be O'f any 



vital consequence. I would miention, too, 
that in nay list of Charles Town Jews who 
rendered service to the Revolutionary- 
cause I purposely took no note of those 
newcomers from Savannah in 1779, some of 
whom had seen service in Georgia. 



My article to-day will be devoted to a 
man whose career was a most remarkable 
one and in whose latter end pathos and 
tragedy were largely commingled. I refer 
to Joseph Salvador, the uncle and fatber- 
in-law of Francis Salvador, a prince 
among men, as he was a prince among 
merchants, and who, overtaken by mis- 
fortune, came to Charleston when 84 years 
of age and who died here some two years 
after his arrival. 

We are mainly indebted to Pioc'iotto for 
our knowledge of the family of Salvador. 
Of the later history, however, that writer 
knows nothing. I shall again let Picciotto 
speak for himself and supplement his ac- 
count by the facts revealed in our rec- 
ords. Here, then, is his story. It would 
be a pity to spoil it by presenting it in a 
mutilated paraphrase: 

"Among the most disting^ulshed families 
of that Congregation during tbe eigh- 
teenth century, (the Spianlsh and Portu- 
guese Congregation of Bevis Marks, Lon- 
don,) we must mention the family bearing 
the name of Jessurun Rodrigues. They 
had originally come over from. Holland, 
bringing with them considerable sums of 
money, which they invested principally in 
commerce, and they ranked as merchant 
princes among the Jews. The most noted, 
scion of that lineage was Joseph Jessurun 
Rodrigues, to whom we have already ad- 
verted by the appella;tion of Joseph Sal- 
vador, under which guise the world knew 
him. He took a leading part in the affairs 
of his Synagogue and he was ever to the 



fore when the sufferings of poor humanity 
were to be relieved. He was president of 
the Congregation, and one of the most 
efficient members of the oiriginal Commit- 
tee of Portuguese Deputies. Notwith- 
standing the extensive financial and mer- 
cantile transactions in which he was en- 
gag>ed, he devoted a portion of his time to 
the improvement of the condition of the 
needy. He not only gave largely to all 
existing Institutions, but was ever seek- 
ing new plans for conquering the hydra- 
headed evil of pauperism. Now he would 
help to establish a new society, like that 
Intended to assist Jewish young men in 
earning their livelihood by hard work, 
and which, unfortunately, was unsuccess- 
ful. At another time he would be found 
asking permission of the Wardens to- en- 
ter into a speculation on behalf of some 
deserving families in humble circum- 
stances. He was always a liberal donor 
to the necessitous. Joseph Jessurun Rod- 
rigues was a partner in the well-known 
house of Francis and Joseph Salvador 
which, after the death of Sampson Gideon, 
repeatedly negotiated loans for tlie British 
Government. We cannot tell at precisely 
wTiat period the name of Salvador was 
first adopted, but certainly it must be in 
the early part of the last century, though 
it does not occur in the Sj-nagogue regis- 
ters until about 1760. 

"Personally, Joseph Salvador, to style 
him by the most familiar designation, was 
popular, and enjoyed considerable repute 
among Jew and Gentile; albeit, when he 
appeared in a theatre on one occasion 
after the passing of the Naturalization 
Bill in 1753, he and his party were hooted, 
and were constrained to withdraw, to the 
utter disgrace of the civilized and Chris- 
tian audience. The principal part of his 
career was accompanied by unbounded 
prosperity. He had vastly increased the 



wealth he had inherited, and he was the 
first Jew who had been appointed Direc- 
tor of the East India Company. He con- 
structed a handsome house in White Hart 
Court, Bishopgate street, which bore until 
recent times, if it does not still bear, his 
name; and in the N. E. corner of one of 
the cellars may yet be seen the founda- 
tion-stone, with an inscription laid upon it 
by his daughter, Judith Salvador. He also 
was the oxvner of a country residence, 
with an extensive park, at Tooting. 

"Joseph Salvador was less fortunaite in 
his latter days. Misfortunes began to be^ 
fall him. He lost heavily in consequence 
of the earthquake at Lisbon, he holding 
much property in various shapes in that 
city, though this did not appear to affect 
him much. It was the failure of the 
Dutch East India Company that brought 
ruin on him, and that proved almost a 
calamity to many of the rich Portuguese 
Jews of England and of Holland. This 
disaster was a great blow to those com- 
munities, from which they found it diffi- 
cult to recover. As for Joseph Salvador, 
he never raised his head again. All his 
available property in Europe little by lit- 
tle disappeared; and his last days were 
spent in obscurity. The family were still 
possessed of some tracts of land in Amer- 
ica, which were in charge of a steward. A 
nephew of Joseph Salvador, Francis, de- 
termined to undertake a voyage to the 
new continent. It is said that Mrs Joshua 
Mendes Da Costa, a daughter of Joseph 
Salvador, gave up a part of her marriage 
settlement to furnish funds for the ex- 
pedition. Francis started to retrieve the 
family fortunes. In due course letters 
came advising his safe arrival to the new 
continent, and announcing his intention of 
seeking his property. He never wrote 
again. A long silence ensued, and then it 
•was reported that the unhappy Salvador 



had been murdered and scalped by In- 
dians ! 

"It is related that in 1802 an Amierican 
arrived in Amsterdam and waited upon 
Mrs Texeira de Mattos, Salvador's eldest 
daughter, and offered her $10,000 to sign a 
deed giving up all claim on the American 
property. The lady declined the transac- 
tion. In 1812 the stranger once more re- 
turned and repeated his offer. He al- 
leged that he was the grandson of Salva- 
dor's former steward; that the land in Mr 
Salvador's time had been a tract of bar- 
ren forests and utterly valuless; that now 
it was covered with villages and towns 
and that he himself had a good holding 
title thereto. Finally he added that, dur- 
ing the War of Independence, British sub- 
jects had forfeited all their rights to prop- 
erty in the United States, and that she 
could advance no claim whatever to the 
land. Under these circumstances Mrs 
Texedra De Mattos, who was 80 years of 
age at that time, and who had not the 
slightest idea as to the State or part of 
the Union in which the demesne was sit- 
uated, accepted the sum rendered and 
signed the required assignment, which 
thus conferred a valid selling title on the 
descendant of the steward. The last male 
representative of the family of Salvador 
or Jessurun Rodrigues was a member of 
Lloyd's, and is believed to have died about 
1830. In this manner terminated that an- 
tient and honorable lineage." ("Sketches 
of Anglo- Jewish History," pp 161-4.) 

Let us now look at our Charleston rec- 
ords and see what they have to tell us. 
They will enable us to separate the facts 
from traditions which, while containing 
an element of truth, are largely erroneous. 
First as to the date at which the nam© 
of Salvador was first adopted. The 
Charleston College is the fortunate pos- 
sessor of a most interesting document, the 



orig-inal "grant of arms" from the 
Herald's Colleg-e, liondon, to Francis Sal- 
vador, tlie grandfather of the Revolution- 
ary patriot. This document has been 
copied by Mr A. S. Salley, Jr, and was 
printed in the South Carolina Historical 
Magazine for January, 1902. In his applica- 
tion for this grant of arms in 1744 Francis 
Salvador states that he is a son of Joseph 
Salvador, late of Amsterdam, and that he 
was made a citizen of England, (as Fran- 
cis Salvador,) in 1719. It is worthy of note, 
however, that in the records of the old 
Devis Marks Synagogue, London, which 
have been printed in the "Memorial Vol- 
ume written to celebrate the 200th anni- 
versary of the inauguration of the An- 
tient Synagogue of the Spanish and Por- 
tuguese Jews" ("not published— for pre- 
sentation only,") and a copy of which was 
generously presented to me by the Haham 
and the Mahamad of that Congregation, 
the names of Jessurun Rodrigues, Jacob 
Jessurun Rodrigues and Joseph Jessurun 
Rodrigues occur in the lists of members 
between 1760 and 1764. Tt would thus seem 
that the name of Salvador had already 
been adopted by the family in Amster- 
dam—possibly even in Portugal in their 
commercial transactions, while they still 
retained the original name of Rodrigues 
or Jessurun Rodrigues in the Synagogue. 
It is not unreasonable to surmise that Sal- 
vador was the Marrano name of the fam- 
ily. And now for the records. 

We have seen that when misfortune 
overtook Joseph Salvador he was still 
possessed of land in So/uth Carolina, in- 
deed, he was a very extensive land-owner, 
for he owned no less than 100,000 acres. 
The history of this land is very interesit- 
ing. 

In the Mesne Conveyance Records, Vol 
F 3, p 133, we have the deed of Joseph Sal- 
vador's purchase of this land recorded. It 



is dotted November 27, 1755. John Hamil- 
ton, late of the Parish of St George, Han- 
over Square, in the County of Middlesex, 
but now of Charles Town, in the Province 
of South Carolina, in consideration of 
£2,000 sterling-, money of Great Britain, 
sells to Josepli Salvador, of Ldme sftreet, 
merchant, 100,000 acres of land situated at 
Ninety Six, in the Province of Soiith Car- 
olina. We hear nothing further of this 
land till 1769, when, as we have seen, Jo- 
seph Salvador gives Richard Andrews 
Rapley, then on his departure into for- 
eign parts, his power of attorney to look 
after his interests in South Carolina and 
to sell some 45,000 acres. (F 4, p 243.) The 
records show that Rapley succeeded in 
disposing of a good portion of this land. 
The first transaction on record occurs 
after the arrival of Francis Salvador in 
South Carolina, In Vol O 4, p 12, we have 
a mortgage recorded (I erroneously re- 
ferred to this as a simple conveyance in 
my lasit article) from Joseph Salvador per 
Rapley to Francis Salvador, of 5,160 acres 
of land at Ninety Six. It is dated May 31. 
1774, though the transaction was concluded 
before Francis Salvador left England, In 
October, 1773. On October 29, 1773, Joseph 
Salvador per Rapley sells to AbraTiara 
Prado, Francis Salvador's step-father, 
1,062 acres for a consideration of £2,124, 
lawful currency of South Carolina. (F 4, 
191.) On the same date he sells to Abra- 
ham Prado, 1,638 acres more. (F 4, 200.) 
On May 16, 1774, he sells to Francis Sal- 
vador 921 acres. (M 4, 286.) On May 24, 
1774, he sells 1,480 acres to Mathew Ed- 
wards. (M 4, 358.) On June 20, 1774, he 
sells to Andrew Williamson 1,795 acres. 
(M 4, 362.) On February 23, 1775, we have 
seen that Joseph Salvador conveys to 
Rebecca Mendes Da Costa 20,000 acres of 
land, to satisfy a judgment which she had 
obtained against him. (T 4, 1.) On March 



31, 1775, he sells to John Lesley 450 acres. 
(Z 4. 286.) On December 8, 1777, he sells to 
Nicholas Eveleigh 3,022 acres. (Y 4, 236.) 
On April 13, 1778, he sells to Benjamin 
Mitchell 300 acres. (Z 4, 282.) On April 29, 
1778, he sells 1,480 acres to Nicholas EJve- 
leigh. (Y 4, 238.) Also another tract of 
3,900 acres, (Y 4, 241,) and a third tract of 
1,048 acres. (Y 4, 243.) On October 6, 1779, 
he sells to John McCord 500 acres. (K 5, 
57.) On November 3, 1779, he sells 1,013 
acres to Thomas Sanders. (N 5, 201.) The 
last recorded deed is dated April 21, 1783, 
when Joseph Salvador, "having occasion 
for the sum of £1,000, mortgages his plan- 
tation, "Cornacre," of 5,160 acres, to Wil- 
liam Stephens, of Lime street, London, 
Packer." (N 5, 81.) 

In 1783 Joseph Salvador was still in Lon- 
don. All his transactions till now have 
been made per Richard Andrews Hapley, 
his attorney. He had been living on the 
money he obtained from the sale of his 
lands in South Carolina— comparatively 
little in truth— but it is pleasant to know 
that he must have had enough to live on 
comfortably. As we have seen he had till 
now disposed of about half of his prop- 
erty. He was still possessed of some 50,000 
acres of land. 

In 1784, when Joseph Salvador was 84 
years of age, he came to South Carolina. 
On April 3, 1784, there is a deed recorded 
in Charleston of Joseph Salvador, "now 6T 
Ninety Six District," revoking his former 
letters of attorney to Richard Andrews 
Rapiey. (K 5, 135.) It is surely pathetic 
to think of a man at his time of life com- 
ing to a new world to seek the wreckage 
of his former fortune. He did not remain 
long, however, at Ninety Six, for on Au- 
gust 9, 1785, we find a power of attorney 
recorded from William Stephens to Joseph 
Salvador, "now of Charles Town." (S 5, 
143.) 

8 



Of his life and doingrs in Chiarleston we 
know nothing-, for the records are silent. 
We should indeed like to have known 
something of how he spent the last 
months of his life. Let us hope that he 
spenit them happily. He did not live long 
after his arrival here. In the Charleston 
Morning" Post and Daily Advertiser of 
Saturday, December 30, 1786, there is the 
following notice of his death: 

•'Yesterday died, JOSEPH SALVA- 
DORE, Esq; aged 86 years. He was form- 
erly a most eminent merchant in England, 
being one of those whoi furnished that 
GJovernment with a million of money in 
two hours' notice, during the rebellion in 
the year 1745; and likewise was one of the 
greatest landholders in this country,' ' 

Joseph Salvador is buried in the old Da 
Costa burial ground at Hanover street. 
He rests next to his friend, Isaac Da Cos- 
ta. Here is all that is left of the inscrip- 
tion on his tombstone, the dashes showing 
where the edges of the slab are broken: 
— cred to the memory o — 
Isurune Rodrigues other— 
— oseph Salvadore of C'oron— 
Fort 96 in the Province of 
Carolina and late of Tooting 
in the Kingdom of Grate B— 
he was one of the Elders— 
of the Portuffeuse Jewish- 
He likewise was F. R. S,— 
Governer of several Hos — 
He was a respectable- 
bearing misfortunes with— 
& resignation to the will of— 
Almighty God trusting in h— 
Departed this transitory lif— 
Eve of Sabath 8 of— 
5547 which answers— 
of December 1786— 
May his soul enj — 

Thus died this "representative of gen- 
erosity, kindliness and courtliness," as Pic- 
9 



ciotto calls him. His will made on Octo- 
ber 7, 1782, whilst he is still in Liondon, is 
recorded here in the Probate Court (Wills 
1786-1793.) He bequeathes all his real es- 
tate in Great Britain or elsewhere, to- 
gether with his plantations, etc, in South 
Carolina, to his daughters, Abigail Salva- 
dor, Elisebah Salvador, Sosannah, other- 
wise Susannah Salvador and William 
Stephens, of London, packer. In addition 
he gives £1,000 to each of the above named 
daughters. He leaves £100 in trust to Wil- 
liam Stephens to be paid to such person 
or persons as his daugliter, Judith Mendes 
Da Costa Salvador, wife of Mr Joshua 
Mendes Da Costa, shall appoint by note or 
writing, or in default of such direction, to 
herself for her own and separate use. He 
also leaves to her an annuity of £50 a 
year. He leaves to Sarah Salvador, widow 
of Francis Salvador, Esq, £10 and £100 to 
William Stephens. To his grandson, Ja- 
cob Salvador, he leaves £100, when he be- 
comes 21, and to his granddaughters, who 
may be living at the time of his decease, 
£200. He leaves £100 to the Portuguese 
Jews' Synagogue of the city of London. 
The residuary estate is to go to his 
daughters. 

In a codicil made at Charleston on No- 
vember 11, 1786, he adds "his worthy friend 
Joseph Da Costa" to the list of his execu- 
tors." He leaves to him in trust £100 ster- 
ling "to pay the same to the Portuguese 
Congregation in the City of Charleston, 
known by the name of Beth Elohim Un- 
veh Shallom, or the House of the Lord 
and Mansion of Peace," and to Mr G^er- 
shon Cohen £20 sterling for the German 
Jewish Congregation in the City of 
Charleston, known by the name of Beth 
Elohim, or House of the Lord. I believe 
that there is a mistake here and I shall 
refer to it again in my next article. To 



his clerk, Michael Hart, he leaves £100 
sterling. 

There is another codicil added on De- 
cember 27, 1786. Joseph Salvador is on his 
death bed. He oannoit sign his name any 
more, but makes his mark. It reads as 
follows: "Fifty pounds more to Mr 
Michael Hart, my clerk; twenty-five 
pounds to Mrs Jane Davis; twenty pounds 
to Mr Charles Brown and a hundred 
pound to Mrs Sary Da Costa, widow." 

The subsequent history of the Salvador 
estate, is somewhat uncertain. Picciotto's 
story of the American's visit to Mrs 
Texeira De Mattos is probably apocryphal. 
It is strange that Joseph Salvador does 
not menUon her in his will. The story is 
highly improbable for reasons that are 
self-evident. We know, however, that 
there was considerable litigation in after 
years about those lands, which have al- 
ways been known as "the Jews' lands." 
It is impossible to ascertain the details to- 
day, for the records of Abbeville County, 
In which Ninety Sixty was formerly sit- 
uated, were burnt many years ago. The 
late Judge McGowan had a good deal to 
say on the subject in an article which, I 
believe, he printed in The News and Cou- 
rier, but I have not the reference at hand. 
Thus ends the singular story of the 
chequered career of a nohle philanthropist. 
We are proud to perpetuate his memory 
and proud to think that his ashes now 
mingle with those of our own beloved 
dead. 



[Reprinted from The News and Courier.] 



THE OAaOCTT PRTQ OO OHASN.8.C. 



THE ORGAN 
IN THE SYNAGOGUE. 



An Interesting: Chapter in 
the History of 

REFORM JUDAISM 

In America. 



H-.^^* 



By Rabbi Barnett A, EUai, 



Not once alone m recent years have the 
Courts been invoked to settle dispute® of 
a purely religious character. In this re- 
spect, too, history has a curious way of 
repeating Itself. The accidental stumbling 
across an old volume of South Carolina 
Law Reports has furnished me with a 
full account of what was, without doubt, 
the ablest and most hotly contested ease 
of the kind on record. It is one of the 
landmarks in the history of Reform Juda- 
ism in America, and is to be found in 
Richardson's South Carolina Law Re- 
'Ports, Vol 2, pp 245-286: The State vs 
Ancker. 

The spirit ol' progress was first mani- 
fested in the Synagogue of Charleston in 
1824, when the "Society of Reformed 
Israelites" was organized. The distin- 
guished Isaac Harby, one of its leading 
spirits, and whose Anniversary Address, 
in 1825, has come down to us, had removed 
to New York in 1828. His loss must have 
t)een severely felt, but the movement he 
had helped to inaugurate continued till 
about 1839 or 1840, when it came to an end, 
its members reaffiliating with the old con- 
gregation, Beth Elohim. 



The old Synagogue had been destroyed 
by the great fire of 1838. It is Interesting 
to note that amongst the many things I 
recently discovered is a large oil painting, 
at the back of which is this inscription: 
"Interior of K. K. B. E., of Charleston, S. 
C, destroyed by the great fire of April, 
1838. painted from recollection and dedi- 
cated to the members of that congrega- 
tion by Solomon N. Carvalho." This Syna- 
gogue—the one that is still used by Beth 
Elohim— was rebuilt in 1840. As just men- 
tioned, considerable accession to its mem- 
bership was made by the reaffiliation of 
the members of the "Society of Reformed 
Israelites." Though this Society had now 
ceased to exist, its spirit was still alive. 
The time seemed favorable, and a move 
was made to introduce an organ into the 
Synagogue as an accessory to worship. 
This was the first organ ever introduced 
into a Jewish place of worship in America. 
This innovation, however, was stoutly re- 
sisted by many of the older members, but 
the progressive party, being now in the 
majority, carried the day. The minority 
withdrew and worshipped elsewhere, and 
in 1844 carried the case to the Courts. The 
case was argued before Judge Wardlaw 
in 1845, the most brilliant legal talent of 
the day being arrayed on either side, King 
& Memminger for the appellants, and 
Petigru & Bailey, contra. The dominant 
party gained the verdict, which was 
affirmed when the case reached the Court 
of Errors and Appeals in 1846. The opin- 
ior> was delivered by Judge Butler and is 
a magnificent document. One marvels at 
the acumen therein displayed. Though the 
question of tlie organ is no longer a living 
question with us, there are questions of 
principle involved on which the Court 
passed, which questions are of perennial 
interest. J therefore, reproduce part of 



the opinion. It is worthy of careful study, 
even at this late day: 

"It is almost impossible to reduce mat- 
ters grooving out of a difference of opinion 
to such a definite form as to subject them 
to judicial cognizance. Rights and fran- 
chises are such matters as have legal ex- 
istence and may be protected by law. 
Speculative disputes must be left, in some 
measure, to the arbitrament of opinion. To 
suppose that an uninterrupted harmony of 
sentiment can be preserved urvder 'the 
guarantee of written laws and constitu- 
tions, or by the application of judicial au- 
thority, woiild be to make a calaulation 
that has been refuted by the history of 
all institutions like that before us. Neith- 
er is it practical to frame laws in such a 
way as to make them, by their arbitrary 
and controlling influence, preserve, in per- 
petuity, the primitive identity of social 
and religious institutions. 

"The granite promontory in the deep 
may stand firm and unchanged amidst the 
waves and storms that beat upon it, but 
human institutions cajinot withstand the 
agitations of free, active and progressive 
opinion. Whilst laws are stationary, 
things are progressive. Any system of 
, laws that should be made without the 
principle of expansibility, that would, in 
some measure, accommodate them to the 
progression of events, would have within 
it the seeds of mischief a.nd violence. 
When, the great Spartan law-giver gave 
his countrymen laws, with an injunction 
never to change them, he was a great 
violator of law himself. For all laws, 
however wise, cannot be subjected to 
Procrustean lim.itations. Cesante ratione 
cessat lex is a profound and philosophi- 
cal principle of the law. These remarks 
are miore particularly true in reference to 
matters of taste and form. Let the old- 



est member of any civil or religious cor- 
poration look back and see, if he can, in 
any instance, trace the original identity 
of his institution throughout its entire 
history. Those who now, in the case be- 
fore us, insist with most earnestness an 
a severe observance of ancient rites and 
forms would hardly recognize or under- 
stand the same, as they were practiced 
by their remote ancestors, who founded 
the Synagogue. The Minhag Sephardm 
was a ritual o'f Spanish origin; and, al- 
though it may yet obtain in different coun- 
tries, yet how differently is it observed. If 
two Jewish congregations, one from Po- 
land and the other from Spain, were* to 
be brought together, whilst professing to 
be governed by the same rituals, they 
would probably find themselves unable to 
understand each other in their observa-ncea 
of them. 

"The Jews in every part of the world, 
by whatever forms they may be governed, 
could, no doubt, recognize the general 
spirit and prevailing principles of their 
religion to be essentially the same. But 
in mere formf a resemblance could not be 
traced with anything like tolerable uni- 
formity. 

"As practiced and observed in Charles- 
ton in 1784, and for many years afterwards, 
exercises in Spanish were connected with 
it. They have been long since discontin- 
ued; long before the commencement of 
this controversy. Religious rituals mere- 
ly, not involving always essential princi- 
ples of faith, will be modified to some ex- 
tent by the influence of the political insti' 
tutions of the countries in which they are 
practiced. In a despotism, where tolera- 
tion is a sin to the prevailing religion, re- 
ligious exercises will be conducted in se- 
cret or in occult form.s. Faith and doc- 
trine may take refuge in these for safety. 



On the contrary, in a country where tol- 
eration is not only allowed, but where per- 
fect freedom of conscience is guaranteed 
by constitutional provision, such devices 
will not be resorted to. Language itself 
is continually undergoing changes; clum- 
sy expressions of rude language will give 
way to modern refinement. There are 
those in every church who would be 
shocked at the change of expression in re- 
spect to the tablets or books that contain 
the prayers and more solemn forms of re- 
ligious rituals. At this time there are 
many who oppose any change of style in 
the editions of the Bible. It is not sur- 
prising that those who have been accus- 
tomed to one form of expression should 
have associations with it that they could 
not have with another. And it is so of all 
religious forms and cei'emonies. The feel- 
ings of such persons should never be treat- 
ed with indifference or rudeness. They de- 
serve respect and are to be regarded as 
useful checks on reckless innovation. 
Matters of this kind must necessarily be- 
long, and should be committed, to the ju- 
risdiction of the body that has the right of 
conducting the religious concerns of ec- 
clesiastical corporations. Charters are 
granted to such corporations, upon the 
ground that they can carry out their ends 
with greater efficiency than if they were 
left to individual exertions and the opera- 
tion of the general laws of the land. The 
parties before us who are opposed to re- 
form contend that dangerous changes 
have been made in the form of their wor- 
ship, particularly as it respects the intro- 
duction of instrumental mu.sic. It is not 
pretended but that the organ, the 
instrument complained of was in 
troduced by the constituted authori- 
ties; but the ground taken is, that 
this authority has been exercised 
to do that which is against the provisions 
5 



of the charter, which guarantees that the 
Minhag Sepharclim should be a ritual of 
the congregation, and that it did not al- 
low of instrumental music as a part of it. 
The objection is to the mere form in 
which the music is used and practiced in 
this congregation. I suppose it might be 
admitted that in its origin such a ritual 
was practiced without the aid of instru- 
mental accompaniment, but to suppose 
that the exact kind of music that was to 
be used in all former time had been fixed 
and agreed upon by the Jewish worship- 
pers who obtained this charter would be 
to attribute to them an impracticable un- 
dertaking. That such music was not used 
is certain; but that it might not in the 
progress of human events be adopted 
would be an attempt to anticipate the de- 
cision of posterity on matters that must 
be affected by the progress of art and the 
general tone of society, and which couid 
not be controlled by arbitrary limitation. 
As this was a subject that could not be 
well reached, much less continually con- 
trolled by the judgment of this Court, we 
think the Judge below very properly ex- 
cluded all evidence in relation to it. 

"Evidence was offered on a graver sub- 
ject, touching the faith and religious pro- 
fessions of. the majority that introduced 
and established the organ. It might be 
sufficient to say that the party which has 
been charged with heterodoxy in this re- 
spect profess to adhere to the ancient 
faith of the Jews. They do not occupy the 
position of those who openly disavow the 
faith of the founders of the synagogue. If 
they were to do so, it would be time for 
the Court to say how far it would take 
cognizance of the rights of the minority 
under the terms of their charter. How 
can a Court ascertain the faith of others 
except by their professions? Can it be 
done by the opinions of others, and if so, 
6 



by whose opinions? It is said that no two 
eyes can see exactly at tlie same distance, 
and, perhaps, no two minds have exactly 
the same conceptions of the same subjects, 
particularly of matters of faith and or- 
thodoxy. The unexpressed sentiments of 
tlie human mind are liard to be found out, 
and it is a delicate office to assume a 
jurisdiction over its operations when they 
are to be reached by the opinions of others 
or conjectural inference. Expressions and 
acts may give tolerable information, upon 
which the judgment may act and deter- 
mine. 

"In this case suppose the Judge below- 
had opened the inquiry as to the faith and 
doctrines of the dominant party, where 
would he have loolted for information? 
Surely not to the minority or any others 
who might occupy an adversary position. 
Could he have trusted to the testimony 
that might have been procured and given 
from other sects and denominations of 
Jews in other countries? And if so should 
he have consulted those who live in Pales- 
tine, in Germans', in England or in the 
TTnited States? He might have assumed 
the power to do thi.<^, but it would have 
been a wilderness of power with scarcely 
a compass to guide him. It would have 
been to go into the labyrinth of curious 
and recondite learning, without a clue by 
which he could escape from its bewilder- 
ing perplexities. He would have had an- 
other difhculty, that is, to determine 
whose testimony he would have taken, 
for both parties, no doubt, had ready and 
able advocate.? for their respective doc- 
trines. It seems to me it would have been 
hard for a civil magistrate to give a defi- 
nite, much less a satisfactory, judgment 
on such subjects. We, therefore, concur 
in the propriety of the course pursued by 
the Judge below in respect to these mat- 
ters. If the Court can be called upon to 

7 



settle by its decision such disputes it 
would be bound to require parties to con- 
form to its standard of faith— a judicial 
standard for theological orthodoxy!" (Pp 
270-274.) 

Times liave changed since then, and even 
consefvative congregations now have the 
organ in their places of worsliip. We take 
everything as a matter of course nowa- 
days, and are too apt to forget the cost 
at which our privileges were bouglit by our 
forefathers. Amongst the precious relics 
of the battles for religious progress that 
have been waged, let us ever cherish the 
memory of the brave struggle of the Jews 
of Charleston in 1840. 



A HISTORY 



OF 



Congregation Beth Elohim^ 

Of Charleston, S. C* 



^^w ^^V ^^ 



Compiled from Recently Discovered Records, 

BARNETT A. ELZAS, 

It 

Rabbi of the Congregation* 



l^v ^fi^ %P^ 



Inscribed to the present members of 
K. K. B. E. 



[Reprinted from the Charleston News and Courier, Nov. 1902.] 



A HISTORY 

• • of the * * 

Congregation Beth Elohim, of 
Charleston, S. C, 

Compiled from recently discovered records, 

i^v i^v ^^v 

The investigation into the history of 
early communities is one that possesses 
a rare fascination for him who has a 
liking for this work. Such a one, how- 
ever, must bring to bear upon his task 
endless patience and equally limitless in- 
dustry. In the absence of direct docu- 
mentary evidence his work will be at- 
tended with the greatest difficulty, and 
the reconstruction of the history of a 
community at the distance of a hundred 
years will be next to an impossibility. 

I attempted to do this some time ago 
in the case of the Charleston Jewish 
community, but, after years of patient 
work, was far from satisfied with the re- 
sults of my labors. Fortune favored me 
recently, however, and by a curious acci- 
dent I was enabled to do in a single hour 
what years of diligent searching had 
failed to accomplish. The accident I refer 
to was the recovery from an old trash 
box of the books of the congregation K. 
K. Beth Elohim from 1800 on. They had 
probably lain there undisturbed for half 
a century, for no one seems to have had 
any knowledge of them. These books are 
in a remarkable state of preservation and 
throw an interesting light on the early 



history of the Charleston community. I 
may add that these records were sup- 
posed to have been burnt in Columbia by 
Gen Sherman during his march through 
South Carolina, together with other prop- 
erty belonging to Beth Elohim. I always 
had an idea, why I don't know, that these 
books had never been destroyed and have 
often so expressed myself. My disbelief 
has invariably called forth only a smile, 
but circumstances have proved that in 
this instance at least my surmise was 
correct. 

Suppose one wished to find out, as I 
did, what Jews were living in Charleston 
in the year 1800, how would he proceed? 
He would go first to the old City Direc- 
tories, which were first published here 
at the end of the eighteenth century. 
These were printed in the old Almanacs. 
A couple of names would be all that he 
would find. He would next turn to the 
"Gazettes" of the day, and the advertise- 
ment columns would furnish him with 
perhaps another naif-dozen names. He 
would now visit the offices of the Probate 
Court and of Mesne Conveyance, and a 
few more names would reward his indus- 
try. He would next turn his steps to the 
auditor's office and consult the tax books 
if available. He would learn that the 
early tax rolls are no longer in existence, 
the earliest being dated 1865. And lastly, 
he would pay a visit to the old Jewish 
cemeteries, at Coming and Hanover 
streets, but these would not give him 
much additional material. From all these 
sources together he could hardly be cer- 
tain of more than twenty-five or thirty 
names. 

The recovery of the Treasurer's book of 
K. K. Beth Elohim for 1800-1810 is a dis- 
covery of no small importance. Besides 
the general information it furnishes of 
the early history of the Charleston Jew- 



ish community, it may help to identify 
a number of names that are now being 
broug-ht to light in the Revolutionary 
records that are being collated in the 
Secretary of State's office in Colum- 
bia. 

But to return to the Congregation Beith 
Bl'oihim in 1800. It was at that time one 
of the richest Jewish congregations in 
America and included among its members 
several distinguished men of Revolution- 
ary fame. It had 107 contributing mem- 
bers, and its incomte for that year was 
£802.12.1. The Rev Abrahami Azubee Was 
minister; Israel Davis, schochet, (killer of 
caJttle for the use of Jews;) Hart Levy, 
sexton; Lyon Levy, secre'tary; Israel de 
Lieben, treasurer, and Hyam Jacob, in- 
spector of meat in the market. The sial- 
aries were fairly large for those days. The 
minister received £100 per annum; the 
schoohet, £60; the seacton, £45; the secre- 
tary, £20, and the meat inspector £20. 
Amongst either item's of expense for the 
year 1800 we find: "Wax and making can- 
dles, £58; charity for the transient poor, 
£10; for sick persons and doctors' bills 
£34;- allowances to sundry poor, £82; pen- 
sion to sundry poor, £20, and expenses of 
Kahano, (tabernacle,) £30." 

The accounts are audited by Emanuel D. 
L'Motta and Benjamin Ricardo. 

It is interesting to note that much of 
the congregational income was derived in 
those days from voluntary "offerings." 
Those of Daniel Hart for the year 1800 
amounted to £50.5.6. The treasurer's petty 
cash book also shows numerous fines that 
were imposed on the members. These 
were, I surmise, inflicted upon those who 
Were absent when their turn caime to be 
called up to the law or who refused con- 
gregationial offices to which they were 
elected. 



The following is a complete list of mem- 
bers for the year 1800: 
Aaron, Solomion. 
Abendanone, David. 
Abendanone, Joseph. 
Abrahams, Isaac. 
Abriahams, Jacob. 
Abralhams, Moses. 
Abrams, Molse. 
Albergo, Judah. 
Alexander, Abraham, Sr. 
Alexander, Abraham, Jr. 
Alexander, Judah. 
Azubee, Abraham?. 
Canter, Emanuel. 
Canlter, Isaac. 
Oanter, Jonathan, 
Canter, Joshua. 
Cantor, David. 
Ca,ntor, Jacob. 
Cardoza, David. 

Coben, Abraham, Sr, (Georgetown.) 
Cohen, Abraham, Jr. 
Cohen, Barnard. 
Coben, Gershon. 
Cohen, Henry. 
Cohen, Jacob. 
Cohen, Mordecad, 
Cohen, Moses. 
Coihen, Philip. 
Cohen, Solomon, Jr. 
Davis, Israel. 
D'Azvedo, Isaac. 
De Leon, Jacob. 
De Lieben, Israel. 
De L'Motta, Emanuel. 
De Pass, Ralph. 
Elizer, Eleazar. 
Elizer, Isa;ac. 
Emanuel, Emanuel. 
Gomez, Jacob. 
Harris, Andrew. 
Harris, Jacob, Sr. 
Harris, Jacob, Jr. 



Hart, Daniel. 

Hart, Simon M. 

Hyiamis, David. 

Hyams, Samuel. 

Hyams, Solomon. 

Jacobs, Abraham. 

Jacobs, Barnard. 

Jacobs, Hyam. 

Jones, Abraham*. 

Jones, Samuel. 

Joseph, Israel. 

Joseph, Joseph. 

Joseph, Jjizer. 

Joseph, Sol M. 

Judaih, Jacob. 

L.abat, David. 

Lazarus, Aaron. 
Lazarus, Marks. 
Levy, Emanuel. 
Levy, Hart. 
Levy, Jacob. 
Levy, Lyon. 
Levy, Moses C. 
Levy, Nathan. 
Lopez, Aaron. 
Lopez, Abram. 
Lopez, David. 
Lyon, Mordecai. 
Manheim, Sol. 
Marks, S. M. 
Milyado, Benjamin. 
Moise, Aaron. 
Moise, Sherry. 
Moralles, Jacob. 
Moses, Abraham. 
Moses, Isaac. 
Moses, Isaiah. 
Moses, Lyon. 
Moses, Myer. 
Moses, Solomon. 
Myers, Israel. 
Myers, Samuel. 
Nathan, David. 
Nathan, Solomon. 



Perrera, Jacob. 

Phillips, Benjamin. 

Phillips, David. 

Poole, Isaac. 

Ricardo, Benjamin. 

Rodrigues, Abraham. 

Sasportas, Abraham. 

Seixas, Isaac. 

Seixas, Mrs. 

Sheftal, Sheftal. 

Simons, Montague. 

Simons, Sampson. 

Simons, Samuel. 

Soares, Jacob. 

Scares, Jacob I. 

Solomon, Joseph. 

Solomons, Levi. 

Tobias, Isaac. 

Tobias, Jacob. 

Tobias, Joseph. 

Tobias, Mrs. 

In addition to these names I find the 
following as contributors, though not 
regular members: 

Aaronson, Woolf. 

Alexander, Moses. 

Da Costa, Isaac. 

Harris, Hyam. 

Lazarus, Simon. 

Levy, Reuben. 

Levy, Zachariah. 

Lopez, Samuel. 

Marks, Hyam. 

Moses, Isaac, Jr. 

Solomon, Israel. 

From the above one may get a tolerably 
good idea of what the Charleston Jewish 
community was as far back as 1800. It 
was a splendid community and worthy of 
its subsequent history, when twenty-four 
years later, under the impetus of gifted 
leaders, it inaugurated the regime of 
Reform Judaism in America, the end of 
which is not yet. 



BETH BLOHIM IN 1801-02. 



There were many accessions to the Con- 
gregation Beth Elohim in 1801, several of 
the present members of that synagogue 
dating the arrival of their fathers from 
that year. In 1802 I find 125 names on the 
books. The income of the congregation 
has been increased to £955 13s 2d; the Rev 
A. Azuby is still minister; David Cardozo, 
treasurer; Israel Davis, schochet, and 
Joseph Cohen, sexton. The items of ex- 
pense are similar to those of the year 1800. 
There is one interesting item in the cash 
book, viz: A fine of £20 inflicted upon 
Abraham Isaacks. There were several who 
were fined this amount between 1800 and 
1810, and it is gratifying to note that they 
paid their fines without demur. As I sug- 
gested in my former article, these fines 
were probably inflicted upon those who 
refused offices to which they were elected. 
In this connection one recalls the fact 
that the imposition of such a fine in the 
old Bevis Marks Synagogue of London, 
England, lost the Elder D' Israeli to the 
synagogue and to Judaism and led perhaps 
to the baptism of the young Benjamin 
D'Israeli, 

The following is the list of new contri- 
butors to the congregation. I omit those 
occurring in the list of 1800: 

Abendanone, David. 

Abendanone, Hyam. 

Abrahams, Emanuel. 

Abrahams, Hyam. 

Azevedo, Isaac. 

Barrett, Judah. 

Canter, Abraham. 

Canter, David. 

Canter, Jacob. 

Canter, John. 

Canter, Rebeccah. 

Cohen, Barnet. 

Cohen, Jacob, Jr. 

7 



Cohen, Joseph. 

Florance, Zachariah. 

Goldsmith, Abraham. 

Goldsmith, Moses. 

Gomez, Elias. 

Hart, Nathan. 

Hertz, M. Hertz. 

Isaacks, Abraham. 

Isaacks, Abraham, Jr. 

Joseph, Lazarus. 

Joseph, Samuel. 

Levi, Simon. 

Marks, Humphry. 

Melhado, Benjamin. (Milyado?) 

Mesqueta, Ralph. 

Messias, Solomon. 

Moise, Hyam. 

Mordecai, David. 

Mordecai, Samuel. 

Moses, Isaac C. 

Moses, Joseph. 

Motta, Emanuel. 

Motta, Isaac. 

Motta, Judah A. 

Motta, Sarah. 

Myers, Lewis. 

Myers, Michael. 

Nettling, Solomon. 

Nettling, The Widow. 

Ricardo, Joseph. 

Ricardo, Ralph. 

Riverra, Abraham R. 

Russell, Samuel. 

Seixas, Isaac M. 

Seixas, Richa. 

Sheftall, Mordecai. 

Sheftall, Sarah. 

Solomons, Alexander. 

Solomons, Chapman. 

Solomons, Joseph. 

Solomons, Nathan. 

Tores, Abraham. 

In addition to the names enumerated I 
find the following on the books for 1800- 
1802.: 



Albergo, Moses. 

Cantor, Isaac. 

Cohen, Benjamin. 

Da Costa, Aaron. 

De Ltyon, Isaac. 

Emanuel, Michael. 

Etting, Elkan. 

Hart, Henry. 

Jacob Hyman. 

Joseph, Barnet. 

Levi, Barnard. 

Levi, David. 

Levi, Judah. 

Lyon, Levi. 

Manheim, Israel. 

Mendez, Aaron. 

Milhado, David. 

Morris, Henry. 

Myers, Lewis. 

Myers, Moses. 

Myers, Solomon. 

Nahar, Moses. 

Russeil, Solomon. 

Sheftal, E. 

Simons, Israel. 

Simons, Moses. 

Solomons, Benjamin. 

Snares, David I. 

Tongues, William. 

Vallance, Moses. 

Zemach, Abraham. 

It is only fair to add that several of the 
names in the above lists may be duplicat- 
ed, owing to the phonetic spelling that 
prevailed in those early days, also owing 
to the fact that the lists are made up from 
two sets of books, one the work of a 
capable secretary, and the other the work 
of a man less capable. 



Betb BloUlm in 1803-5. 

In my former articles I pointed out the 
importance of the recovery of such lists 
as those I have printed. Lists of names 
are dry reading, but they ofttimes tell a 
tale as interesting to the student of his- 
tory as do the relics of bygone ages to 
the geologist or ethnologist. My task is 
nearly done and I shall print but one 
more list — always omitting the names that 
have occurred before. From 1803-5 the 
congregation Beth Elohim held its own, 
both in numbers and income. The details 
of its expenditures for these years are 
without especial interest. Here are its 
contributors: 

1803. 

Barrett, Abraham. 

Cohen, Solomon I. 

Cohen, Wolf. 

Davega, Moses. 

Emanuel, Nathan. 

Goldsmith, Isaac. 

Harby, Solomon. 

Hart, Joseph. 

Hart, Solomon. 

Henry, Maurice L. 

Isaacks, Solomon. 

Levy, Leon. 

Levy, Solomon. 

Levy, Solomon, Jr. 

Melhado, Emanuel. 

Mears, Simon. 

Moses, Fishel. 

Moses, Levy. 

Nathan, Nathan. 

Phillips, Solomon. 

Seixas, Ratse. 

1804. 

Agular, Joseph. 

Cohen, Samuel. 

Cohen, Solomon, (Philadelphia.) 

Coleman, Sylvester, 

Goldsmith, Samuel. 



Harris, Hyam. 
Hart, Leo. 
Hart, Mathias. 
Hertz, A. M. 
Isaacs, Sampson. 
Lazarus, Isaac. 
Lewis, David. 
Lobell, Moses. 
Lopez, Joseph. 
Marks, Alexander. 
Marks, Mark. 
Messias, Abraham. 
Monsanta, Rodrigues. 
Morales, Doc. 
Moses, David. 
Myers, Mordecai. ^ 
Nathan, A, M. 
Nathans, David. 
Solomons, Hart. 
Solomons, Hertz. 
Suares, Isaac. 
Suryuy, Joseph. 
Woolf, Rachel. 

1805. 
Brandon, David. 
Corree, Jacob. 
Goldsmith, Solomon. 
Goodman, Dr. 
Hendricks, Sarah. 
Hertz, Alexander. 
Jacobs, Samuel. 

Kurshedt, . 

Marks, Solomon. 
Moise, Benjamin. 
Monsanta, M. R. 
Moses Chapman. 
Moses, Levy. 

Pereyra, . 

Simon, Michael. 
Solomons, Mark, 
Solomons, Solomon. 



Beth Eloblm In 1806-10. 

With the accompanying lists for 1806-10 
I bring my articles to a conclusion. The 
only item worth noting in the list of ex- 
penditures is one in 1809, when £34.3.2 is 
appropriated for "the entire completion of 
Mikva," (ritual bath)— an appurtenance 
now only found in the most orthodox of 
Jewish congregations: 
1806. 

Barnerd, Alexander. 

Buley, Jacob. 

Cohen, Jacob I. 

Emanuel, Isaac. 

Harby, Isaac. 

Harris, Moses. 

Jacobs, Jacob. 

Lazarus, Jacob. 

Lazarus, Joseph. 

Lyon, Moses. 

Moses, Israel. 

Simfpson, Michael. 

Woolf, Isaac. 

1807. 

Cohen, Hyam. 

Frideburg, — . 

1808. 

Carvalho, Emanuel, N. D. 

Heydenfeld, I. 

Hyams, Isaac. 

Levine, Lewis. 

Ottolengui, Abraham. 

Phillips, Jacob. 

Pinto, David. 

1809. 

Cohen, Jacob, D. 

Cohen, Mordecai S. 

Goldsmith, I. M. 

Henry, Joel. 

Hertz, Jacob. 

Lyon, Solomon D. 

Mordecai, Goodman. 

Morris, Simpson. 

Phillips, Aaroik 



Phillips, Abraham. 

Pollock, Levy. 

Solomon, Aaron. 

1810. 

Cohen, Abraham, (Edisto.) 

De Pass, Joseph. 

Goldsmith, Morris. 

Heydenfeld, Jacob. 

Lipman, — , (from New York.) 

Martin, M., (from Jarrtaica.) 

Morley, N. 

iMordecai, Noah. 

Moses, Andrew. 

Offen, Jacobus, V. 

Samuel, Joshua. 

Sheftall, Doctor. 

Simons, Saul, (Georgia.) 

Many of the names enumerated in these 
lists are well-known names of men who 
shed glory upon themselves and their 
country during the critical period of the 
Revolution. Their descendants are still 
with us, active members of Beth Elohim. 
Some of the names are no longer remem- 
bered and it has been a grateful task to 
rescue them? from oblivion. May the pres- 
ent generation be inspired by it to prove 
themselves worthy of the past record of 
their congregation, than which there is 
none that excels in dignity and glory. 



THE DAGGETT PRINTING COMPANY, 
CHARLESTON, S. C. 



